PDA

View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Horatio Leafblower
14th Nov 2013, 04:02
Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development

Media Statement

14 November 2013

Aviation Safety Regulation Review

DEPUTY Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss today announced an independent review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

“This announcement delivers on one of the key commitments outlined in the Coalition’s 2013 Policy for Aviation,” Mr Truss said.

“Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety – among the best in the world – which has been built on a strong regulatory system, forged over many years.”

In launching the review, Mr Truss said aviation activity is expected to double in the next twenty years. The industry is a vital part of our economy and we must ensure it is supported by a regulatory system that delivers the highest levels of safety.

“Now is the right time to reassess how our safety regulatory system is placed in dealing with this dynamic and evolving sector. The independent review reinforces the Government’s commitment to maintaining safety as the highest priority in aviation.

“The review will be strategic in nature. It is about whether we are on the right track to meet future challenges and respond to growing demand in aviation.”

The review is to be undertaken by a panel of leading aviation safety experts and will benchmark Australia’s safety regulation against other leading countries.

Mr David Forsyth AM, will Chair the review panel. Mr Forsyth is a prominent figure in Australian aviation. He is the chair of Safeskies Australia, former chair of Airservices Australia and has over 30 years of experience in safety management and aviation business.

Mr Forsyth will be joined by Mr Don Spruston, former Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada and former Director General of the International Business Aviation Council, and by Mr Roger Whitefield, former Head of Safety at British Airways, former safety adviser to Qantas and former United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority board member.

The panel will also be supported, as required, by specialist advisers. Mr Truss has appointed Phillip Reiss to take particular responsibility to ensure that the concerns of general aviation and regional operators are well aired.

Mr Truss indicated his confidence that the breadth and depth of expertise secured to conduct this review will ensure that a comprehensive and balanced perspective is reflected in the panel’s findings.

Over the coming months, the review panel will undertake extensive industry and public consultation. Further details, including how to make a submission, will be available from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr<http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr>.

The review panel will provide its report to the Deputy Prime Minister in May 2014.

The Terms of Reference for the review and information about the review panel members follow at Attachments A and B.

Attachment A

Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Terms of Reference

Objectives

The principal objectives of the review are to investigate:
• the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;
• the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);
• the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA);
• the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety related regulations when benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions; and
• any other safety related matters.

Outcomes

The report of the review will:
• examine and make recommendations as required on the aviation safety roles of CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and other agencies as appropriate;
• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;
• examine and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and the ATSB;
• examine the current processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (such as civil aviation orders) and make any proposals for improving these processes such that new regulations are best practice in safe operations for each relevant sector of the aviation industry;
• review the implementation of the current aviation safety regulatory reform programme and assess the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of regulatory changes, including cost impacts on industry;
• examine and make recommendations on options for improving future aviation safety regulatory reform having regard to international experience and stakeholder views, and the Government’s objective of reducing the cost of regulation to business;
• provide advice to Government on priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and
• provide advice to Government on options for improving oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including rights of review.

Consultation

The review will seek the views of the CASA Board and senior management and staff, and the ATSB Commission and senior management and staff in developing its advice to Government on the review’s objectives, and consult closely with:
- international, domestic, regional, general aviation, sport and recreational aircraft and maintenance operators and organisations;
- federal, regional and local airport operators;
- other relevant Government agencies including Infrastructure, Airservices Australia, the Department of Defence and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC); and
- other industry and public stakeholders.

Background

Australia’s aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (covering the operations of CASA), the Air Services Act 1995 (covering the operations of Airservices) and Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (covering the operations of the ATSB).

In addition the establishment of an Aviation Safety Regulatory Development Taskforce in March 2010, comprising dedicated resources from CASA and OPC, was specifically aimed at helping expedite the completion of the regulatory drafting work for an aviation safety regulatory reform programme.

The current regulatory reform programme involves completion of three main regulatory suites covering aircraft maintenance, aircraft operations and flight crew licensing. The maintenance and licensing suites are largely completed with the operations suite scheduled to be completed next year.

The aviation industry and CASA are in the process of implementing the maintenance and licensing regulatory changes already made and in which significant investment in improved systems, training and education is completed or under way.

Work on updated regulations for areas affecting general aviation such as amendments to Civil Aviation Safety Regulations - Part 42 (Continuing Airworthiness - amendments for charter and aerial work), Part 132 (Limited Category Aircraft Operations - Warbirds), Part 138 (Aerial Work Operations) and for sport and recreational aviation (Parts 103, 105 and 149) are scheduled to be progressed in the next twelve months.

Earlier this year a Senate report into Aviation Accident Investigations highlighted a range of issues with the regulation and governance of aviation safety within Australia.

It is therefore timely to consider future aviation safety structures and regulatory development approaches and processes in Australia by evaluating the effectiveness of the current approach, looking at international experience and possible options for future improvements and bearing in mind the commitment of the Australian Government to reduce the burden of regulation on the economy.

It is also timely to look at which areas should be priorities for future regulatory development to meet continued growth in aviation demand.

Review Membership and Timing

The review panel will comprise Mr David Forsyth (chair), Mr Don Spruston and Mr Roger Whitefield. The panel will be assisted by a Secretariat established within Infrastructure, and will be supported as required by specialist advisers.

The review will report to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in May 2014.


Attachment B

Aviation Safety Regulation Review – Panel Members

Mr David Forsyth AM (Australia) – Review Panel Chair
Mr Forsyth has extensive experience in aviation engineering and management. A professional engineer and a Member of the Order of Australia, he has held executive and board positions across the industry, government, not-for-profit and academic sectors in Australia.

Mr Forsyth currently works as an independent consultant to the aviation industry and has served on a number of Boards, including as Chair of Airservices Australia, Chair of the Safeskies Conference, Vice President of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (SE Section) and President of the Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division. He previously worked for Qantas for over 30 years in technical and management roles including: Manager of the Melbourne Maintenance Base; General Manager, Regional Airlines; and Executive General Manager, Aircraft Operations.

Mr Forsyth holds a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering (Hons) and a Graduate Diploma in Industrial Engineering Developments from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and has completed the Stanford University Executive Program. A Councillor of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Australian division since 2004, he is currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the UNSW School of Aviation.

Mr Don Spruston (Canada) – Review Panel Member
Mr Spruston has wide-ranging experience in oversight and regulation of the aviation sector with the Canadian Government. He has also been extensively involved in the development and implementation of criteria for reviewing aviation safety regulatory performance as part of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP).

Formerly Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada, Mr Spruston was until recently, the Director General of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) based in ICAO headquarters in Montreal, Canada. He has previously held senior positions with Transport Canada including Director General of Aircraft Services, and Regional Director of Air Navigation Services in the Pacific Region.

Mr Spruston holds a Bachelor of Science from the Royal Military College of Canada and has an Airline Transport Pilot Licence.

Mr Roger Whitefield (United Kingdom) – Review Panel Member
Mr Whitefield has held senior positions in both regulatory and operational roles within the aviation industry – he was previously a commercial pilot for over 30 years. For the past 10 years he has been a board member of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) during a period of significant structural and governance reform of the Authority.

He is a member of the International Safety Review Team which most recently conducted an independent safety review of Air France following their loss of an A330 aircraft. He is also Chair of Air Safety Support International (a UK Government company charged with helping deliver aviation safety oversight for British overseas territories). A Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Mr Whitefield spent a number of years as an external advisor to the Qantas Safety Review Board.

Mr Whitefield has had 39 years’ experience working for UK airlines as a pilot, airline captain and in executive roles, including as Head of Safety and Head of Corporate Safety and Quality with British Airways.

[ENDS]

Media Contact: Brett Heffernan on (02) 6277 7680 or 0467 650 020 or [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Creampuff
14th Nov 2013, 04:24
Peace for our time!

Horatio Leafblower
14th Nov 2013, 04:33
Is that a piece of paper in your hand Mr Chamberlain?

I do like the potential of this bit:

Outcomes

The report of the review will:
<snip>
• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;
<snip>
• examine the current processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (such as civil aviation orders) and make any proposals for improving these processes such that new regulations are best practice in safe operations for each relevant sector of the aviation industry;
• review the implementation of the current aviation safety regulatory reform programme and assess the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of regulatory changes, including cost impacts on industry;
• examine and make recommendations on options for improving future aviation safety regulatory reform having regard to international experience and stakeholder views, and the Government’s objective of reducing the cost of regulation to business;
• provide advice to Government on priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and
• provide advice to Government on options for improving oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including rights of review.

...he has provided an opening, now the RAAA and AOPA and AAFI and the rest of us need to stick our feet into the door and wedge it open.

Creampuff
14th Nov 2013, 09:35
Finally they’re having a review.

Just another 7 months or so and all the problems in aviation regulation and accident investigation in Australia will, for the first time ever, be revealed by external experts and rectified by the government.

And then it will be aviation Nirvana.

Lucky I have the attention span of a goldfish. Otherwise I’d remember the last 3 or so times I’ve heard the same crap.

I’m saddened that many of the people who fly or fix aircraft in Australia appear to have the attention span of a goldfish.

Kharon
14th Nov 2013, 18:39
A review next year eh, well what's to be done then?. Do we all sit and sweat it out over the keyboard, writing and editing; then rewriting. Bore our nearest and dearest witless asking them to read a masterpiece they can't comprehend. Then when it's finally done; wave a tearful, fond farewell to the paperwork as it disappears into the belly of the beast expecting it to make a difference, secretly knowing that within a 12 month it will be treated as every other submission made; redundant from birth.

Control over outcome is what's needed if this expensive inquiry is to get home, the opposition is entrenched, established, have all the levers and know how to pull them. There is little point taking off if you don't intend to arrive at your destination. To get there you can't just do the take off and expect the aircraft to arrive in one piece and land without some driving from you (metaphorically speaking).

Anything other than a determined, concerted, coordinated push for change, seen through to the end will be doomed to failure. Failure will mean creatures like Wodger delivering plagiarised speeches at the RAeS meetings, bald eagles writing more dodgy letters, trained attack dogs patrolling your hanger, see the inutile promoted, the dubious rewarded and your confidential REPCON a signed confession, this process will allow more first class junkets to exotic ports for long lazy holidays with your current squeeze.

You have your review, one shot – now then, what's to be done, lest history repeat itself (again).

Selah.

Creampuff
14th Nov 2013, 19:20
I wouldn’t sweat it.

The report of the ‘Review’ has already been drafted.

Cynical Pilot
16th Nov 2013, 08:30
Not sure if anybody heard Albanese's speech on this matter the other day. As fiction goes it was almost as good as "no carbon tax under a government I lead." It's worth seeking it out in Hansard to see for yourself how much he believes CASA do good work...

Jinglie
16th Nov 2013, 10:34
CP, I agree. I watched Albo's speech and was almost sick! Laughable the extent of the lies!! It is a national disgrace!

sunnySA
16th Nov 2013, 10:56
The speech.


Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:03): Labor welcomes the minister's statement and the announcement of a further review into the regulation of aviation safety. As the minister said, this country has an enviable record of aviation safety, the result of governments of either political persuasion taking a nonpartisan approach to this issue, as is entirely appropriate. During the period in which the current minister was the shadow minister, when it came to safety and security issues they were dealt with in a manner above politics, and I intend to adopt exactly the same approach. It is absolutely critical that safety not be an issue which becomes part of the political contest.

It is also the case that, when it comes to aviation safety, we can never be too cautious. Continuous improvement must always be our aim, and our pursuit of the best possible aviation safety framework must always be beyond politics. When I became the minister, I commissioned significant reform to the aviation sector through a properly planned green and white paper process. That was the first time that Australia had put in place a comprehensive plan for aviation that went to safety and security, regulatory issues, workforce-planning issues, the general aviation sector and international agreements, so it was a comprehensive plan, not for just a year or two; it was a comprehensive plan for decades ahead.

All the recommendations on safety and security were put in place by the government. We had a process for a strategic plan, including accelerating the modernisation of Australian regulation. I would hope that this review takes it to the next stage. We introduced a board of governance for CASA, chaired by Allan Hawke—a process that received the support of the parliament. In terms of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we improved its governance structures as well by having commissioners and by extending the ATSB's responsibilities to also look at rail and shipping, so that you had a comprehensive approach to transport safety issues.

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

I also welcome the appointment of David Forsyth to chair the review. I know David well. I appointed him to chair the board of Airservices Australia in 2008, a position he held with great distinction until last year. Under Mr Forsyth's leadership the board led a major program of investment in critical safety infrastructure, air traffic services and training of skilled personnel.

About $1 billion is being invested in upgrades for air services. We have seen new air traffic control towers. I have opened them not only in capital cities such as Adelaide but also in regional centres such as the Sunshine Coast and Broome. The air traffic control process is also being streamlined to achieve greater cooperation between defence systems and the civil aviation sector.

I am also pleased that the coalition has appointed overseas experts to this review because, in an industry that is by definition international, it is critical that we consider overseas experience.

In fact, just before the recent federal election, I welcomed the ATSB's decision to invite the Canadian Transportation Safety Bureau to undertake an independent review of the ATSB's investigation methodologies and processes.

That review commenced in August. It aims to provide the ATSB with valuable insights about possible improvements in the conduct of investigations. It is due to report to the minister next year, and I look forward to discussing that process with him. I am pleased that Mr Forsyth will be joined in this new review by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the UK. Both men are indeed highly qualified.

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

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

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

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

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

Kharon
16th Nov 2013, 17:07
Jinglie #9 –"It is a national disgrace!" That's a bit tough, Albo's speech may have been a national embarrassment; but to fully understand the international disgrace you really should read – This post (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520516-atsb-reports-3.html#post8156620)-

I'll stick my neck out and say that the Sarcs post more clearly defines, in one page the need for reform than all the bloody awful polly chatter, CASA waffle and ATSB probability statements ever printed. Nicely played Sarcs, please accept my vote for the post of the year award. Bravo....:D....Indeed, well done Sirrah......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Sunfish
17th Nov 2013, 03:48
Ahhhhh, children. The message here is in the fine print:"The panel will also be supported, as required, by specialist advisers". I would also add that there will undoubtedly be some "administrative support".

Now folks, remember little Sunfish waxing lyrical about the good folk at Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet?

Guess who will have written the terms of reference, press release, selected the members, written the letters of appointment and most importantly written the brief to Cabinet that got the Elephant stamp??

Anyone? anyone?

To put it another way, a young (30-ish) honours economics phD has just been invited to run a stake through the heart of CASA and its perverted "safety" argument in return for a Deputy Secretaries slot at Transport and who knows what other transport related appointment afterwards?

You may never know her name until a year or Two after the ruins have been cleared and her role on the secretariat of the review is revealed in her resume.

Of course if she doesn't succeed she won't be an up and comer in PM&C afterwards.

Frank Arouet
17th Nov 2013, 05:29
More information needed, however oblique it is.

It's no good saying I told you so when it happens. So protect your reputation now. :suspect:

aroa
17th Nov 2013, 06:16
:mad:..."I commissioned SIGNIFICANT REFORM by having properly planned white and green papers"

The White paper was Kleenex SuperSoft material passing over GA in two paras that said nothing.

All we got out of his years was "ops normal" and WORSE :mad::mad:

Still, being an inveterate liar is par for the course for the likes of Albo.
As far as aviation goes he doesnt know his arsk from his albo !!

The Golden Dog Turd Award of the year I'd say.:D

Dick Smith
17th Nov 2013, 09:31
"There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost"

Notice these words in the ex ministers speech. Quite a breakthrough I would say.

Now we need to change the Act to reflect reality

At the present time under 9A - functions -it states. - " CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration"

This means more important than cost and is clearly not complied with.

Does anyone have some better suggested wording?

Kharon
17th Nov 2013, 18:38
Scary business this thinking lark; a man should never start it. Always amazes me, how little I know about the 'way' of matters which can affect so many are managed and how much faith and trust we must, of necessity, have in the folk responsible.

CP# 6 –"The report of the ‘Review’ has already been drafted."
With a bit of luck, Creamy is probably 80% correct. The hope of course is, that the report recommends a six month warning bell of a six month lead up to the NZ (or similar) rules being adopted. It is the right fix for so many reasons. Supported (gods willing) by a DAS and a team with the right stuff to make sure the adoption is as painless as possible.
DS# 15 –"Now we need to change the Act to reflect reality"

The regulation mess rightly gets all the attention; but now I wonder, while we are at it, would/could /should/ the Acts be repealed. How does that work? does the parliament approve 'the Act' and do the regulations depend on the Act for their horsepower? Too much for my wooden head, but I'm curious now. Apart from the foster and promote etc. amendments do we need to change the Act??. Anyone??

I know a couple of acts that are in desperate need of some serious attention; but that'll keep....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Good to see you back Sunny...:D

Frank Arouet
17th Nov 2013, 21:10
Dick, it depends on the interpretation and implementation of the words;

At the present time under 9A - functions -it states. - " CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration"

To this must be added or implanted that the Industry cannot be strangled by unnecessary regulatory burdens and The Act should be unambiguous and reflect contemporary world wide standards. (US KIWI PNG and just about everywhere else).

With regards affordable safety, words need to be used to reject current thinking of making it unaffordable for Industry to operate without fostering and promotion. Affordable safety is relative and should be all encompassing. Safe skies may be empty skies, but it can't continue on this track, or aviation as we know it will obviously cease to exist.

As an aside, CASA have demonstrated on many an occasion that they are not fit to write the regulations, not fit to prosecute the regulations and not fit to administer penalties without AAT intervention.

To this end if CASA wish to write the regulations, The Commonwealth Police should investigate and prosecute the offences and the DPP should administer the penalties. The Industry Complaints Commissioner should be abolished if CASA are paying the salary and the appeals process needs to be more balanced and affordable than that in the AAT. All appeal matters need to be Judiciary taxed to prevent CASA defending the indefensible to the last cent in the taxpayers purse. People have their livelihoods ruined without any recourse to a redress of wrongs perpetrated upon them with frivolous and vexatious charges. This is a two way street so intending Defendants need to have their ducks in a row.

Someone smarted than me can probably work this rant into meaningful words.

GedStreet
18th Nov 2013, 01:05
CASA is a cost. They cost the industry money which could have otherwise be spent on grass roots safety.

Safe Skies for All?? Only when CASA has everyone OUT of the sky!

However, if we want safe skies for all, those on the ground, potentially under the debris should pay towards their own safety. CASA should be funded from consolidated revenue and go back (again) full circle. Then we all have a say in CASA's performance too. Dismal and underhanded as it has been of late.

FAA is in charge of safety and fostering the Aviation industry in the USA. We need that approach. Maybe repeal the Civil Aviation Act, sack CASA en-masse and contract Aviation safety and growth to the FAA.

Time for another name change, CASA!

Paragraph377
18th Nov 2013, 04:59
It has probably been covered but the following needs to be included in the body of any charter, wording, statement or framework made by CAsA or the Government.
As follows:

· CAsA accepts the responsibility to act in a manner that is equal in fairness, quality and ethics in nature across all aspects of the aviation industry
· CAsA accepts full accountability for the decisions, actions, policies, procedures and regulations it implements, introduces and mandates
· CAsA accepts accountability for the actions of all its employees including inspectorate, management and administration staff
· CAsA accepts both its moral and legal obligation to use taxpayer funding in a responsible, transparent and fair manner
· CAsA accepts that the outcomes of internal/external investigations, audits, reviews and discussions into its activities be published publicly for the purpose of transparency and accountability
· CAsA accepts the commitment to honour judicial recommendations by courts or law and/or coroners courts in all matters
· CAsA accepts that it will honour recommendations that are produced from senate or other government inquiries, commissions or reports into its activities. CAsA also commits to responding in full to all questions, queries or request in a manner that is timely and transparent, and accepts to do so within a 30 day timeframe at maximum
· CAsA accepts the formation of an independent ICC consisting of non CAsA employees or persons connected to the CAsA by way of consultancy or paid services.
· CAsA accepts the decisions made by the AAT and agrees that it will not expend taxpayer funds fighting fair and equitable decisions made during the AAT process. CAsA further accepts that it will pay compensation to any person/individual who is inconvenienced, unduly treated, falsely accused or found innocent of false, non existent, incorrect or malicious charges
· CAsA accepts its obligation to be a good corporate citizen by standardising process, policies and procedures network wide to ensure consistency and fairness across all sectors of the aviation industry

It is absolute time that cronyism, payback, bullying or unjustifiable actions be removed from the authority once and for all. I am sure others with a more legal/statutory background have more to add or changes to make to the above, but you get my drift. No more excessive power, no more thumbing of the nose at industry and the government itself, no more misuse of taxpayer money for the sole purpose of payback and revenge. NO MORE HIDING FROM AND AVOIDING ACCOUNATBILTY. ACCOUNTABILTY HAS TO BE INTRODUCED INTO THIS ORGANISATION AT ALL LEVELS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.

Sunfish
18th Nov 2013, 05:10
Cactus, I don't know exactly who will be the PM&C person who will destroy CASA, but I know the modus operandi.

The plan will look something like this:

Part 1: an economic analysis size and scope of the industry. That establishes the importance of Aviation to the country and its economy. Growth rates etc. potentials are included.

Part 2: a benchmarking exercise against other regulators - this again involves a major set of metrics - performance indicators. If this is done properly, it will answer the question of whether we have a real problem or you are all a pack of whingers.

********At this point the review can reach its first conclusion: Do we have a problem? How important is it to fix it? That tells us about how much time and resources can be invested to fix things.

part 3: the legislative framework

Part 4:CaSAs performance in discharging its legislative responsibilities.

Part 5: discussion and options for change.

Part 6: recommendations.


..at least that is the structure I would start with, but others may know better. The key is that it all needs to be kept in dry as dust academic economic discussion. The Quadrios of this world will be disappointed I think.

What has to be achieved is a change to the legislation to require CASA or its successor to take heed of fostering the industry - removing the "preventing aviation" option for discharging its responsibilities.

Anyway that's my two cents.

SIUYA
18th Nov 2013, 07:04
Request ATSB response to PelAir [Mrdac replies - "Take on Notice"]


:mad:

This nonsense is going from bad to worse.

Mrdak's arrogance here is mind-blowing, and if after all this time he needs to take the request as a QON, then I'd suggest that the Minister (yes, YOU Mr Truss) is NOT doing his job and making sure that the mess which Albanese left IS actually being addressed, and that he needs invite Mrdak in RFN as the guest of honour to a bloody big arse-kicking party! Dolan and the other management clowns at the ATSB need invites too!

:ugh::ugh:

Creampuff
18th Nov 2013, 07:32
Gosh, all of that ‘grilling’ must have had the officials quaking in their boots. Yet they walked away (again) with their jobs. If only the government had the power to do something other than wave a rhetorical fist at these evil fiends.

So anyway, now that anyone with any sense has worked out that the new government is going to do as much as the old government about aviation regulation and accident investigation, where to next?

Think hard. (For Sunfish: The children in PM&C are dealing with the important issues: “stopping the boats” (full of the people who keep Australia’s toilets clean and bins emptied); “axing the tax” (so that everyone’s power bill can go down but remain the same); and “doing this, that, and the other thing” (so that you’ll all finally be deliriously happy).

Where to next?

dubbleyew eight
18th Nov 2013, 14:29
maybe you should approach it the way they sometimes do in thailand. :E

Paragraph377
18th Nov 2013, 19:39
Well it certainly seems like The Heff has had a gutful of Fort Fumbles folly. The amount of QON's being rolled out by The Angry Man and Mrdak was unbelievable. Typical arrogant obsfucation and stalling tactics. I wonder if The Guinness Book of Records will accept submissions for the category 'Government department stalling tactics' and accept the tally of QON's collated from senate estimates and senate inquiries?

And what about bi bi bi Beakers performance? It was nothing short of embarrassing. That is one man completely out of his league. If ever an individual was meant to walk 'the green mile' it is him. Kim Bills and Alan Stray would be choking on their cereal watching Beakers performance. He was like a Pel Air aircraft off Norfolk - made a number of robust attempts to land smoothly but ditched and sunk.

I am seriously hoping that yesterday was just a practise run, a warm up before the Senators cut loose! Will we see the outcome we all so dearly want and deserve to see? Dunno. But we will be entertained by the fireworks that lay in wait? I reckon so! I would say these Muppets should stock up on anusole wipes and salve because I suspect these clowns are going to receive a sideways pineapple :ok:, so it should be a good show.

Checklist;
1) Beer
2) Popcorn
3) Comfy recliner chair
4) Body bags
5) Additional crate of pineapples
6) 2 boxes of Kleenex to wipe away the tears of laughter
7) Additional supply of pot plant fertiliser to ensure Pete isn't neglected during those long estimates sessions
8) Screaming Skull piñata for fun during the commercial breaks
9) 'Body language reference book'. This is always a good tool to keep handy and use as a reference guide to gauge the level, depth and consistency of the shite dribbling from FF's mouths. (No extra pressure boys, but the IOS are watching closely :=)
10) QON counter clock for tracking the amount of QON's that those beneath the robust spotlight turn to in an effort to avoid answering questions and avoid telling facts and truth.

'Safe questioning for all'

Creampuff
18th Nov 2013, 20:29
Creamy, you really are a 'trough half empty' kind of guy := Actually, my trough runneth over. :ok: That’s probably because my strategic plans are based on realistic assumptions, rather than credulous enthusiasm for words out of politicians’ mouths.

The only glimmer of hope is professional lobbying of the people who will be non-major party aligned Senators with effect 1 July 2014.

Ixixly
18th Nov 2013, 21:50
This whole farce could make a good drinking game, I'll get the ball rolling,

1. Everytime CASA take a QON you take a shot

bankrunner
19th Nov 2013, 07:36
So anyway, now that anyone with any sense has worked out that the new government is going to do as much as the old government about aviation regulation and accident investigation, where to next?

The rot had well and truly set by the end of the Howard years. Truss did nothing about it last time he was in that job, nor did Vaile. I don't expect we'll see much more out of Truss than we saw from Albo.

Neither side of politics particularly cares about aviation.

dubbleyew eight
19th Nov 2013, 09:37
I dont know that they dont care. probably more that they dont really understand much of it.

Sunfish
19th Nov 2013, 19:22
Wait until a QF A380 goes into Botany Bay, then they'll care and not before.

Creampuff
19th Nov 2013, 19:35
They’ll also pretend to care if the non-major party aligned Senators make their support of some government pet project contingent upon some trade-off in the aviation sector.

For example, just imagine if the non-major party aligned Senators asked to talk to Minister Truss and his National Party colleagues about the sale of GrainCorp to Archer Daniels Midland. The Minister would give the non-major party aligned Senators anything they wished in return for rejection or overturning of an FIRB approval to sell. ;)

Kharon
20th Nov 2013, 02:20
Estimates Hansard (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2F1f4a327 c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F1f 4a327c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0000%22) 18/11/13 P.77 PDF- P.73 Hansard. (My bold). Sorry the quotes are in BLUE - having some serious issues with format and spacing.

CHAIR: Have they announced the panel?

Mr Mrdak: Yes, they have. The panel was announced last week. The minister made a statement to the House—a ministerial statement—and he announced the composition of the panel, which will be chaired by Mr David Forsyth from Australia. The panel is Mr Forsyth; Mr Don Spruston, former head of aviation safety in Canada; and Mr Roger Whitefield.

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Mrdak, can you advise whether the panel will hold public hearings or private hearings or a combination of both? Will there be an opportunity for those who participated extensively in the Senate inquiry to also give evidence to this particular panel?

Mr Mrdak: My understanding is that the intention of the panel is that they will seek public submissions and meetings with interested parties, to which there will be an open process. How they wish to take other information will be settled by the panel when they first meet and discuss—

Senator XENOPHON: If this committee was minded to resolve to request a meeting with the panel, would they take that into account?

Mr Mrdak: Yes, I would imagine so.

Senator XENOPHON: If there is evidence given to the panel would it be covered by any form of privilege? That is very important. If it is not covered by privilege you may find that people are not prepared to come forward to give evidence.

Mr Mrdak: Clearly, the panel will have to establish arrangements, particularly for taking evidence where people wish to protect certain confidential material. That is one of the areas the department will work—

Senator XENOPHON: Confidentiality is difference from privilege, though.

Mr Mrdak: I do not think a panel of this nature could offer privilege in the same way that the parliament can.

CHAIR: Witnesses to this particular panel—and I am sure Dick Smith would like to make a presentation given that he is not on it—would want to know with confidence they would not be intimidated because of the evidence that they give, which is one of the protections of course which this committee offers. But there will be none of those protections, to the best of your knowledge?

Mr Mrdak: We are now exploring the way in which we will provide protection of confidential material. I am sure the panel will be very concerned to ensure that there is protection of both material and evidence being provided to it—or certainly submissions being provided to it. But, clearly, a panel of this nature cannot provide something of the form of privilege in a way that you would understand it for a parliamentary committee.

CHAIR: Would it be peculiar to provide privilege for that panel to appear before this committee so that there would be privilege?

Mr Mrdak: That would be a matter that we would have to explore.

CHAIR: Can I invite you to invite the panel to appear before this committee and give us the answer? We would like it to appear because, if we are going to do this properly without fear or favour, I think we would offer the opportunity of privilege.

Mr Mrdak: I will seek some advice, Chair, in relation to how the panel may interact with the committee.

CHAIR: We could start with a private briefing.

Senator Sinodinos: Can I just caution on this. When the minister made his statement, I think he made it clear that this was looking at systemic and strategic issues. It was not meant to reopen every investigation that has occurred or to pursue individual grievances.

CHAIR: That is all right, but there are systemic issues.

Senator Sinodinos: I understand that, but as long as we all understand that it will be not so much focused on the specific but drawing out from the specific what general lessons there might be. It is not a forum to reopen individual investigations.

Senator XENOPHON: But, Minister, with respect, the Senate unanimously handed down its findings, and they were scathing findings by any objective measure. It was a damning report of CASA and the ATSB—absolutely damning. No-one can criticise the methodology of the committee and the forensic work that the committee put into this.

Insofar as there are a number of recommendations made based on what the committee found to be very serious failures in respect of the Pel-Air investigation, then surely that is relevant in looking at systemic failures on the part of CASA and the ATSB.

Senator SINODINOS: I do not think we are talking at cross-purposes. I am just saying that this is not a forum to replay the whole of that investigation.

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, but insofar as the Senate made a number of recommendations that were scathing of the ATSB and CASA—

Senator SINODINOS: All of which is on the public record.

Senator XENOPHON: from my point of view we do not want it swept under the carpet. There is a genuine concern by all members of this committee about airline safety in this country.

CHAIR: There was some dramatic downgrade of the incident.

Senator XENOPHON: That is right.

CHAIR: What was it from?

Senator XENOPHON: It went from being a safety issue identified as critical to being downgraded significantly. That is something that Senator Fawcett asked many questions about. There were issues about whether CASA and the ATSB colluded or not. That was raised. Can I remind the minister that the committee took such a serious view of this that it referred the evidence to the Federal Police for investigation into whether there was a breach of the TIA legislation.

Senator SINODINOS: I think we are in furious agreement.

Senator XENOPHON: I still do not know how the panel is going to do its job if it does not give privilege to people.

Senator SINODINOS: Having listened to all of this, we will go away and get advice on how we can handle this in a way that means that—

Senator XENOPHON: If you can.

I'll have 10 bob on the Senators, keep the beggers honest.... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Hi LDL-Low HDL
20th Nov 2013, 10:36
WTF is Sinodinos doing on that panel? He was Howard's right hand man and the Libs really don't want to cause a stir. At least Heff, Xenophon give a Fck. :mad:

Kharon
20th Nov 2013, 19:15
Hi # 37 –"WTF is Sinodinos doing on that panel?"

It's a good question and valid for much of what's going on with this review. But I'll keep my money on the Senators, they can see what's happening; those with the most to fear and loose have the controls and if they are allowed to keep them, prepare for yet another roll of soft white paper being delivered to industry. Not that I'm religious, but I send a word to the gods of sanity and justice every morning, just in case. Not holding my breath either....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Creampuff
20th Nov 2013, 19:39
The Honourable Arthur Sinodinos AO, Assistant Treasurer, was not “on the panel”. He was there as a witness, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development (who is a member of the House of Reps and therefore does not condescend to appear before a Committee comprising unrepresentative swill).

The Minister representing’s job was to do what his tweedle dum predecessor from Labor did: Defend CASA and ATSB.

If you think about it, you’ll realise it’s all just theatrics. A bunch of Coalition Senators on the Committee are ‘outraged’ at the conduct of CASA and ATSB in relation to the Pel Air matter. Enter stage left a Coalition Minister and his senior officials from the Department with portfolio responsibility for CASA and ATSB, all saying ‘relax, it’s all under control’. If you took the names and dates out of Hansard, you would not be able to tell there had been a change of government.

Frank Arouet
20th Nov 2013, 20:54
Creampuff;

An accurate assessment, which is what some of the players want to hear, but it's not what is needed to fix a broken "thing" (and I use "thing" for impact). I work on the theory of maintaining an irritant until someone starts to scratch. The IOS are quiet capable of throwing more flea's onto the dog yet and until the fat lady sings it isn't over. While CASA loom menacingly on the horizon, it pays to nip the problem in the bud and put the shoe on the other foot so we can clean the rot and make the place clean as a whistle.

So at least it's something that is being done.

The "thing" can only be attacked at a political level. Think about that.

Horatio Leafblower
20th Nov 2013, 21:48
Hi Frank,

Just wondering if you could please edit your post.

There simply are not enough mixed metaphors or cliches in there. Please insert some more and try harder next time.

Sarcs
20th Nov 2013, 22:19
Frank: An accurate assessment, which is what some of the players want to hear, but it's not what is needed to fix a broken "thing" (and I use "thing" for impact). I work on the theory of maintaining an irritant until someone starts to scratch. The IOS are quiet capable of throwing more flea's onto the dog yet and until the fat lady sings it isn't over. While CASA loom menacingly on the horizon, it pays to nip the problem in the bud and put the shoe on the other foot so we can clean the rot and make the place clean as a whistle.
Love it Frank! :E Flea's and dogs..hmm don't wascily wabbits also sometimes get afflicted with fleas, maybe the minister should call in Flick to fumigate the FF wabbit warren??:rolleyes:

By the way the semi-disgraced old bugger MP on the end of the railway track has submitted the following in support of his IOS membership submission :D: FNQ aviation industry urged to speak up (http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/387/FNQ-aviation-industry-urged-to-speak-up.aspx)

THE Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review will give local aviation businesses the opportunity to expose CASA’s regulatory and procedural failures, says Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch.

The Hon Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, has recently released the review’s Terms of Reference.

“I welcome the minister’s Review,” Mr Entsch said today.

“The Terms of Reference outline how the panel will consult closely with general aviation, industry and public stakeholders. This will provide an opportunity for operators like Barrier Aviation – and others from around Australia who have contacted me – to provide information on the appalling way in which they have been treated by CASA officers.

“The fact that they will be dealing with a panel of well-respected overseas experts should mean that at least they will get a fair hearing, unlike the blatant prejudice to which they’ve been subjected to date.”

Mr Entsch has used Barrier Aviation for many years and the airline's suspension as a result of a drawn-out CASA inquiry has had a significant impact on charter availability around the Far North.(NB: accompanying text with the pic)

Mr Entsch said the Government had a clear policy of reducing the cost of regulation to business and this goal will be part of the review.

“It’ll also examine the matters that were raised by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations. I know that a number of issues with our air safety regime were highlighted and there needs to be further consideration of those.”

The review will examine how well Australia’s regulatory system is positioned to ensure we remain at the forefront of aviation safety globally. It will consider the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety, and the relationships and interactions of those agencies as they work together in one system.

It will also consider the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process undertaken by CASA and it will benchmark our safety regulations and regulatory system against other leading countries.

A period of public consultation will take place over coming months and the Panel will report its findings in May 2014.

“I would absolutely encourage anyone who has had an issue with CASA procedures - and in particular their officers - to put in a submission,” Mr Entsch said.

“In addition, if they have experienced repeated and unresolved problems with individuals within CASA, they can give evidence in Canberra and name them. Testimony will be subject to parliamentary privilege and cannot be intimidated by legal threats.”

To view the full Terms of Reference, click here (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2013/wts008_2013.aspx) Hmm..he's got my vote!:ok:

Creampuff
20th Nov 2013, 22:38
And do you know how many times Mr Entsch has uttered the same empty rhetoric over the last couple of decades, with only the name of the operator changing?

Mr Entsch is part of the problem. He’s part of yet another government that does not want to govern CASA and the ATSB.

The problem will persist while ever ostensibly intelligent people welcome, with credulous enthusiasm, mere hot air out of politicians’ mouths.

Yes Frank, I’ll stick my neck out on a limb (that’s a mixed metaphor; yours are merely consecutive metaphors) and agree that “the thing can only be attacked at a political level”. But given the substantial weaknesses of GA as a political force, the attack must be very professional and very focussed if it is to have any chance of bringing about substantial change.

Frank Arouet
20th Nov 2013, 23:38
Creampuff;

Any semblance of a GA political force went in 2004. Since then doors have been closed then locked because of the actions of a few egotists. One notable who used to post here being declared Persona Non Grata in a CASA internal memo and another dragging a once effective organization down to silence and obedience.

The IOS appear to be doing what they failed to do, so you really should give some credit where it's due. One individual, (marginally attached by common direction of purpose), still has political doors open to him and has to act individually to maintain some form of credibility but he is often open to the flank of industry who wish to live off the teat of the regulator.

Mr Entsch has uttered the same empty rhetoric over the last couple of decades

For clarity of your purpose in making these assertions can you give references to qualify these utterances, otherwise you become guilty of the same political spin which is dictated when saying the same thing over and over until it becomes fact.

Frank, I’ll stick my neck out on a limb

Indeed where it may gather birds of a feather.

“I would absolutely encourage anyone who has had an issue with CASA procedures - and in particular their officers - to put in a submission,”

This appears to answer the question on whether "old" matters would be entertained.

Testimony will be subject to parliamentary privilege and cannot be intimidated by legal threats.”

This answers the other concern I guess?

Metaphorically speaking that is.

Creampuff
21st Nov 2013, 00:08
For clarity of your purpose in making these assertions can you give references to qualify these utterances, otherwise you become guilty of the same political spin which is dictated when saying the same thing over and over until it becomes fact.Have you heard of “Hansard”?

Random pick: Mr ENTSCH (11:37 AM) —I rise today to again speak on an issue that I have raised with monotonous regularity in this House regarding the competency of CASA and the way in which they are dealing with some of the operators in my electorate. I will give you two examples: one is from a company, Lip-air Proprietary Ltd, that operates out of the Torres Strait. …26 August, 1999.

If only governments had power to do something other than wave a rhetorical fist at the regulator. Oh, wait….

You are, of course, free to welcome, with credulous enthusiasm, the same hot air out of the same mouth, some 14 years later.

Frank Arouet
21st Nov 2013, 05:18
Have you heard of “Hansard”?

Yes, and I also have a local phone book and minutes of the Local Government monthly meeting. I'm working on The CWA.

The problem is if you refer to any you need either a date, a subject, a name, place or event. A random pick doesn't qualify to prove empty rhetoric over the last couple of decades.... or Mrs Smiths washing, especially her whites, are habitually a disgrace to her street.

I personally don't care how often Entsch says it, the fact is "SOMETHING" is being said and done. We can only hope "SOMETHING COMES OF IT"..... don't we?

Entsch and Lip-air.... Now there is a rhetorical oxymoron and is difficult to expand on here without ruffling political feathers of a conservative nature. Lets not remember The Alamo, lets remember Cape York Air.

No..... better we remember the Agents Provocateurs, CASA.

Howabout
21st Nov 2013, 10:39
Frank, I don't want to get into a stoush, but Creamy is right.

Entsch surfaces occasionally and sprukes platitudes, but never follows through.

Don't forget that Warren was a member of the government during the Howard years and could have had some positive influence if he had more than wind. What did he actually achieve for aviation, and GA in particular?

Zip!

All we are getting is a return to the ineffectual performances of the past.

When I look at Entsch in the context of aviation, I am reminded of Basil Fawlty rubbing the soup-spoon around Manuel's forehead, before finally smacking him on the scone, and delivering the memorable line: 'You are a waste of space.'

Kharon
21st Nov 2013, 18:04
Whenever I hear of Wazza, FNQ and matters aeronautical all in one sentence the little bell signalling an incomplete statement pings. I always feel that words, like Swires, Anderson and a couple of others have been omitted. So then, in order to be fair to Wazza, we need to examine his rhetoric in context of the time and the political/ financial side plays which may have prevented him from carrying through. If good intentions pave the road to hell, then obedience to "party and power" must be the speed bumps.

Now Creamy is street smart and usually quick enough to pick up on the odd loose end. Perhaps, to be scrupulously fair, he could answer the following Wazza questions:-

When was the last time Wazza got up head of steam about Sleepy Hollow----and why ??

When was the last time Wazza got muzzled ------and why ??

The support in both houses seems to be there now and the big boys land/power games have settled down, who knows – he may finally get his licks in. They play rough in FNQ and all have long memories.

Frank Arouet
21st Nov 2013, 21:29
Howabout;

Creampuff is always right, just ask him. It is his most annoying trait but he still needs focusing when it comes to the "goodies" and "the baddies". Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and I've proof the beers don't taste any worse by his company.

Entsch has form I agree, but I would wager his need of the preferential vote and sacrifice of anybody who stands in his way to get it far outweighs his now legendary hollow rhetoric. As I said previously, he is saying "SOMETHING" and we can only hope "SOMETHING" comes of it, so by definition "THAT" should be applauded.

Creampuff said:

Mr ENTSCH (11:37 AM) —I rise today to again speak on an issue that I have raised with monotonous regularity in this House regarding the competency of CASA and the way in which they are dealing with some of the operators in my electorate. I will give you two examples: one is from a company, Lip-air Proprietary Ltd, that operates out of the Torres Strait. …

This quote not only is incomplete but focuses on "crocodile tears" for an associate over a matter that had tragic consequences and bears no relevance to making the point of empty rhetoric. Perhaps if Creampuff wants to expand on his example he may tell us why this was "hollow" given Entsch's acceptance of certain votes at a Federal Election. How those votes impacted on profitable air operators and subsequent family's grief. Who was the other example mentioned in the quote?

The example is a nonsense.

It is historically provocative.

It opens wounds best left closed by expansion.

It could be argued it is bait and if so, is professionally out of order.

It redirects focus from;

the Agents Provocateurs, CASA.

Creampuff
21st Nov 2013, 22:02
When was the last time Wazza got up head of steam about Sleepy Hollow----and why ??So far as I am aware, Wazza has never got a head of steam up about any issue.

Lots of hot air. But no steam that I’ve seen.

Lots of posturing. But no substantial action that I’ve seen.[T]he fact is "SOMETHING" is being said and done.Half correct, Frank.

The fact is that, as usual, something is being said but nothing is being done.

Let me make my point another way.

Who is stopping the new government from taking real action, now, to change, fundamentally, the fabric and functioning of the air safety regulator and accident investigator?

Is it the Boogey Man?

Is it the United Nations?

Is it the Communists?

Is it the Queen?

Is it the People’s Popular Front of Judea?

Is it mesmerising mind beams sent out by evil geniuses in CASA and ATSB?

Deep down, you know the answer.

Nobody is stopping the new government from taking real action, now, to change, fundamentally, the fabric and functioning of the air safety regulator and accident investigator.

The reason the new government, like its predecessors, is choosing not to take real action, now, to change, fundamentally, the fabric and functioning of the air safety regulator and accident investigator is:

(1) It doesn’t need to. (The issue makes not a schmick of difference to the opinion polls.)

(2) It doesn’t want to. (If it actually took control, it would then be responsible for the outcome.)

(3) Even if it wanted or needed to, it wouldn’t have a clue what to do to achieve a different and better outcome. (This, ultimately, is the killer for GA in Australia.)

Frank: Sorry, but your post above is a complete nonsense.

Paragraph377
21st Nov 2013, 23:21
Creme de la cremepuff, I thought 'The Peoples Popular Front of Judea' was renamed CASA Legal Services Department a few years ago? Maybe I have been asleep at the yoke? Anyway Creamy, I subscribe to your doubt in anything significant changing at Sleepy Hollow. As long as those who 'promulgate the mystique of aviation' are allowed to stick pins in their Xenophon doll the chances of actual tangible robust change is low. A greater likelihood of change may come from an A380 belly flopping on to the Australian war memorial in Canberra, an outcome we all dread happening, but one that the IOS (and Sunfish) have been warning about from the beginning of the dark ages.

Frank, Entsch mentions 'monotonous regularity'. Well worded by the one whom I believe somebody named the 'Wild Hog'. However tautology now replaces monotonous, so if you could let the Wild Hog know that it would be appreciated. Also please ensure the Honorable Entsch refrains for talking in coded language or
uses excess shanty's, as this tends to upset the Casasexuas (jeez I am starting to sound like Kharon :ok:).
On a serious note, Entsch may be blowing hot air and no steam, but as Frank says he is doing something, and something is better than nothing, and personally I couldn't think of a better way to relax as a politician, cruising FNQ on a Harley and whacking the knife into Fort Fumble under parliamentary privelege :ok:

P.S Who cares for CASA FNQ's pot plants? The humidity and arse covering this time if the year tends to produce vine weed and stinkhorn in abundance!

P.S.S (Warning this question has been reproduced in code to prevent legal implications). Is it true that 'someone' highly ranked in CASA is somewhat upset that his girlfriend has moved on? :E

Kharon
21st Nov 2013, 23:36
I'd have a beer with both (or either) of you, even if just to bury the hatchet or, hold the jackets. Either way, the Wazza of old, is ancient history and not pertinent, really, is it? Anyway - Creamy always makes good, if left handed points and provokes thought; it's the nature of the beast:-

CP "The fact is that, as usual, something is being said but nothing is being done." He omitted the 'YET' word and only time will prove Wazza's pudding.

There is a mountain to climb for these politicos. They can't (in reality) just walk in issue half a dozen taxi vouchers and have security walk the 'baddies' to the exit (much as it would be applauded). I do believe something will change, but for that to happen, the scene has to be (or not to be) set right, the actors rehearsed and all emergency exits must be cleared. Further, a platform (scaffold) to justify the changes everyone knows must happen needs to be built. So, although it is slow and tedious, I reckon the impetus for change is there. If it's not brought about through what the Polly's now know; then the soon to be terrified, disgusted public will ensure that the right changes are made.

The hope is that the 'man at the back of the room', Joe Public, never discovers the bloody awful dogs breakfast, the incredible wastage, and complete distrust the current administration have generated, all to the detriment of a sound, mostly compliant, willing to join in the safety merry-go-round industry.

Consider this, as it stands if CASA tried to rein in a 'real' rogue operator; no matter what they did or how right they were, nothing they could say or do would be believed, there is so much leverage available from 'similar' - fit up – having been established, it destroys all credibility. The massive (huge) home grown credibility gap is a major stumbling block, of their own making. The downside is that just once, they may be correct; but too many innocents have been hanged. More than any reform of the regulation, first we need to reform the regulator. At least re-establish credibility and industry trust.

ATSB? that could be fixed in a heartbeat with a stroke of a pen. But CASA needs a sensible, properly experienced hand on the helm. CASA cannot be allowed to continue as it is, there are simply too many public 'embarrassments'.

Frank Arouet
21st Nov 2013, 23:36
Who is stopping the new government from taking real action

Personally I blame The ABC.

But the real reason is the defeatist and apathetic attitude of those within the industry and the opportunistic use of that by the regulator who hides behind a mantle of "safety" for public perception.

Oh, and the "fifth column" of ex CASA functionaries and Bureaucrats who fail to look beyond their own wallowing troughs and fiefdoms.

May be so bold as to quote one, ably qualified by CASA mentoring;

[QUOTE A ‘syllogism’ is a form of reasoning in which, from two given or assumed propositions called the premisses and having a common or middle term, a third is deduced called the conclusion, from which the middle term is absent. For instance, given the major premiss: all fish live in the sea; and the minor premiss: carp are fish; it is logical to conclude that carp live in the sea.
Provided the premisses are valid, the conclusion is valid. Unassailably valid. The conclusion is unassailably valid whether it is arrived at by an idiot or a genius, a novice or an expert. [/QUOTE]

Thus an idiot can logically conclude that the premiss: all who are dismissive of attempts to bring CASA to account are employees of CASA and the minor premiss: ex CASA employees are similarly dismissive of attempts to bring CASA to account ; it is logical to assume that anybody employed at any time by CASA have been brainwashed into thinking anybody attempting to influence an outcome to bring CASA to account are the ills of society (IOS), and should be thwarted at every opportunity.

I'm the novice, you're the expert after all.

May I further be so bold as to suggest you support the good guys and denounce the bad guys. The problem for you is to determine who is the goodies and who is the baddies, not who is legally correct v who are the morally correct.

It's a pity so many in the legal profession support the left when it suits and refuse to support its social justice platforms when it comes to push and shove.

Creampuff
22nd Nov 2013, 02:23
Thus an idiot can logically conclude that the premiss: all who are dismissive of attempts to bring CASA to account are employees of CASA and the minor premiss: ex CASA employees are similarly dismissive of attempts to bring CASA to account ; it is logical to assume that anybody employed at any time by CASA have been brainwashed into thinking anybody attempting to influence an outcome to bring CASA to account are the ills of society (IOS), and should be thwarted at every opportunity.Your logic is impeccable.

Therefore, your ‘logical assumption’ is correct, if your premisses are valid.

Are your premisses valid?

Again, deep down, you know the answer. := May I further be so bold as to suggest you support the good guys and denounce the bad guys. The problem for you is to determine who is the goodies and who is the baddies, not who is legally correct v who are the morally correct.May I be so bold as to suggest that the real baddies have fooled you and lots of others into believing the monkeys are the baddies rather than their organ grinders?

May I further be so bold as to suggest that my posts are intended merely to move the metaphoric spotlights to the people who, in my humble opinion, are the real baddies?

In my opinion, some of the real baddies comprise the governments which avoid doing anything about the problem.

Other people look like real baddies but probably aren’t. Rather, they’re probably just real dummies. They’re the people who waste energy arguing with the monkeys. :ok:

Sarcs
22nd Nov 2013, 02:25
Quote from Murdoch Mainstream Media clones..err drones!!:E

Industry anger over CASA's blame game


THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority's attempt to blame an 11th-hour decision to delay new pilot licensing rules on a lack of understanding in the industry has provoked an angry backlash.


Aviation bureaucrats were forced earlier this week to announce that the new rules, which were due to be introduced on December 4, would not come into effect until September next year.

This is despite the fact the new licensing suite came into law in February and the issue has been under review for more than a decade.

The new rules were lauded as recently as last week as one of the actions CASA was taking to tighten rules governing night flying in the wake of a crash involving an ABC helicopter.

CASA had been negotiating with the industry since February and was saying as recently as last month that the rules would not result in major changes for most pilots.

While few are upset by the delay in the new licensing suite in Parts 61, 64, 141 and 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, several industry associations have taken umbrage at the reasons given by CASA.

The authority said the primary reason for the delay was to give the industry more time to prepare.

"Despite CASA's education and information campaign on the new licensing regulations, many pilots and people working in flying training are only starting to understand the new rules," it said. "While the new regulations do not make major changes to existing practices, it is clear more time for education and information communication is required."

CASA said it received a "relatively large" number of comments and constructive suggestions after the new regulations were made in February and had subsequently proposed a package of amendments to clarify and improve the regulations.

"Due to issues beyond CASA's control it has not been possible to make these amendments before December 4," it said, adding that the new timetable would give the aviation industry the opportunity "to provide more feedback to CASA on implementation issues".:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

It is understood that the issues beyond the authority's control refers mainly to the September federal election and the time lost while the previous government was in caretaker mode.

However, industry associations say the changes as originally proposed by CASA were riddled with problems that the authority has been unable to address by the December start date. This included CASA having no legally binding manual of standards, and a stack of amendments that had not been incorporated, said Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst. :D:D

Mr Hurst, who has been sitting on the Part 61 working group since 2000, said he had been "gobsmacked" by the reasons given by CASA, given the errors in the new rules that industry members had been correcting.
"I think it highlights the gap between where the regulatory reform program should have gone and where it's ended up," he said.

"How can a regulatory body blame the industry for not being ready when the legislative planks are not in place, such as the manual of standards?"
Despite the delay, Mr Hurst said there was "a lot of good stuff" in the new rules and AAAA had been providing briefings to its industry on the transition to the new rules for the past year.

"After all that, we really, really look forward to David Forsyth and his colleagues having a review of this and determining whether in fact it is industry that's causing all these terrible delays," he said. "We have a view on that."

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Paul Tyrrell said the delay was a sensible response to strong feedback, describing the CASA claim that industry could not understand the changes as "unfortunate".

"It appeared to lay blame completely at the feet of industry and seems to indicate the relationship has broken down between senior CASA management and industry," he said. "My understanding is the industry was just asking to have further time to implement part 61 and 141 and 142 appropriately. It just wasn't ready on both sides and I don't think there was any blame towards CASA, it was just simply to get it right.":D:D:D

The Australian Helicopter Industry Association, which has been heavily involved in the Part 61 process and has been working with the section head of rotor-craft standards at CASA, noted it had previously warned that the manual of standards would not be completed by December 4.

The association said its vice-president, Mark Scrymgeour, had recruited a team of a dozen top trainers to help with the manual of standards (MoS) review but it became clear there were problems that could result in smaller schools closing or abandoning training at a time when aircrew shortages were again looming, AHIA secretary Rob Rich said it probably had the biggest aviation working group handling CASR Part 61.

"By comparison, the aeroplane industry did not have as many changes to evaluate as the helicopter industry, which was required to undergo an enormous change requiring the purchase of equipment capable of instrument flight rules training," he said.

"The cost of upgrading current instructors cannot be calculated, as the latest MoS amendments are yet to be released."

...."and now it's back to the GABBA.".:ok:

Frank Arouet
22nd Nov 2013, 03:22
Creampuff;

if your premisses are valid.

If Piscatorial terminology was the previous basis to use then they appear as valid.

Can I assume, we have identified the following possible bad guys;

1) The Government.
2) The Opposition.
3) The Minister.
4) The Regulator.
5) The Regulator/ Prosecutor/ Body that removes abilities to carry on.
6) The Defendant/ Industry.
7) The Appeals process.
8) Public perception, (and of course "our" ABC).

Now if The Senate or The Minister set up any inquiry or review that interrogates any and either or all of these entities, where would you suggest they start first. This is not a question aimed at being abrasive, but you have opinions, which we all value one way or another.

Sarcs;

The industry has good cause to be angry at being blamed for CASA's ineptitude. What the MMSM failed to cash in on was CASA's proven track record of incompetent regulatory review and waste of taxpayers money over a very long period of time.

It's time CASA pizzed or got off the pot.

Kharon
23rd Nov 2013, 17:53
Is the incoming 'panel' fully prepared and briefed for what is coming at them? like it or not. If they expect an elegant little sit down to chew over, along with the shortbread and Orange Pekoe, a way to sketch around the appalling mess in which the regulatory reform has landed, then the gods help them.

Perhaps they should call for submissions first, hire a team of the quality Steven Palethorpe ran for the Senate Pel Air inquiry (superb) and then reassess the ToR. The Reg mess is merely a symptom, not the disease. The sickness is internal, deep seated and chronic. The "You can't deal with truth" quote from the movie comes to mind. The question is not can they, but will they?

Not to worry, with fantastic insight, scrupulous investigation and diligent examination of the facts; CASA have determined that whilst it is "unfortunate", the industry is at fault. (As predicted).

Amazing how the Wodgerism - "it is unfortunate" – gets up people's nose. I note the Ag boys have taken issue with the phrase in their press release. Since Wodger found the phrase useful in some of his less salubrious missives, it has been widely adopted by the GWM members who graduated from the 'plagiarise and publish" school of dodgy doings.

Now that 61 has been shelved, I wonder – can the newly hired consultant wives (brought in to assist) be kept gainfully employed during the hiatus; or will paid travel to exotic destinations (fact finding missions) be provided as a stop gap measure. Perhaps, they could be despatched to do an A 380 type rating, which seems to be very much in vogue with the 'in crowd'; although there does appear to be a minimum age limit on that rort. It's all slightly disgusting, n'est-ces pas?....

601
24th Nov 2013, 08:10
$240M and counting. What a coc*up.
I do love the spin thought. It's their fault, not ours. We just wrote it.

Sarcs
24th Nov 2013, 19:30
Well for someone that is all 'hot air', big on rhetoric..small on actions it would seem Wazza is not fazed by spreading his love of FF around a large slice of his constituents..;):
Entsch to pursue CASA’s evidence to Senate hearing
By MARK BOUSEN

FEDERAL Member for Leichhardt Warren Entsch will study the transcripts of last week’s Senate Estimates Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearing to determine if the Parliament has been misled over facts relating to Barrier Aviation.

Mr Entsch told the Torres News his concerns centre on the evidence before the Estimates Committee from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority under questioning from Senator David Fawcett, a former RAAF and commercial pilot.


Senator Fawcett directed numerous, probing questions to the CASA representatives about the demise of Barrier Aviation, almost 12 months ago despite a virtually exemplary record over about 20 years.

Mr Entsch says he will study the transcripts "very closely" and provided a copy to the owner of the Barrier Aviation, David Kilin, as a matter of urgency.

Senator Fawcett met with Mr Kilin recently.

Mr Entsch said: "From my understanding of CASA’s evidence, it’s in conflict with what we’ve been told by Barrier Aviation.

"It seems to be a direct contradiction to what’s been provided so far. I am very keen to peruse the entire evidence to the Estimates Committee from CASA to see if the Parliament has been misled.

"And if the Parliament has been misled, the individuals should be held accountable."

Last week’s hearing coincides with the release of the details of the independent review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

Mr David Forsyth AM, will Chair the review panel which is expected to start taking evidence before the end of the year.

Mr Forsyth is a prominent figure in Australian aviation. He is the chair of Safeskies Australia, former chair of Airservices Australia and has over 30 years of experience in safety management and aviation business.

Mr Forsyth will be joined by Mr Don Spruston, former Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada and former Director General of the International Business Aviation Council, and Mr Roger Whitefield, former Head of Safety at British Airways, former safety adviser to Qantas and former United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority board member.

Mr Entsch strongly encouraged people to come forward and give evidence to the hearing.

"This will provide a brilliant opportunity for people who believe they have been poorly treated by CASA or individuals in CASA to be heard.

"This will give them a chance to state their case about any vendettas or bastardry that they believe has been directed at them. :D

"It’s been a year since CASA shut Barrier Aviation down and the airline still has not had a chance to present its case.

"Barrier withdrew its recent action, simply because it ran out of money.

"There seems to be a pattern where matters are drawn out by CASA until the airlines are broken, and they do not allow them any avenue of redress."

Mr Entsch says he encourages anyone with a grievance to make a submission.

"I’ve had a lot of people contact me who have been afraid of victimisation if they speak up; this inquiry gives them an opportunity to provide evidence in camera. This will offer them anonymity and protect them from intimidating threats of defamation.

"People can be honest and frank."

Mr Entsch believes a "common thread" will emerge from the inquiry.

"The inquiry is wide-ranging and broad enough for everyone to present their case. I’m really looking forward to the review panel’s suggestions."

Barrier Aviation had operated from bases in Horn Island, Cairns, Darwin and Gove with a fleet of more than 30 aircraft and 50 staff.

According to CASA’s statement, the time lines of events are:

December 23, 2012: CASA suspends Barrier Aviation’s air operator’s certificate.

* February 22, 2013: The Federal Court of Australia made an order prohibiting Barrier Aviation from conducting operations for a set period.

March 13, 2013: CASA then cancelled the air operator’s certificate held by Barrier Aviation.

March 15, 2013: Barrier Aviation applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of this decision.

July 31, 2013: CASA refused an application for re-issue of an air operator’s certificate.

August 14, 2013: Barrier applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of this decision.

October 16, 2013: Barrier Aviation withdrew its applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
* (Torres News understands the court order expired at 5pm that afternoon; meaning the court order expired on the afternoon on the day it was issued.)
Hmm..Wazza sure is no shrinking violet over his rhetorical attack on FF, maybe he is contemplating going out with a bang before riding off into the sunset on his hog..:ok:

Note: Someone from the LNP forgot to put a rope around Senator Fawcett, he seems to popping up all over the place :E...from post #69 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/526786-part-61-special-pilot-licence-4.html#post8169989)
1000 - 1020 Introduction Ken Cannane, Executive Director, AMROBA
Change – need for new direction
Review – will it achieve change?
1030 – 1040 Government Policy – Direction Senator David Fawcett
LNP Aviation Policy
1040 – 1300 Open Forum - Issues
Chairs: Senator Fawcett, Ken Cannane
And in the Senate: ADJOURNMENT - Aviation SPEECH (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/Aviation%20Adjournment141113.pdf)
Thursday, 14 November 2013 (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/Aviation%20Adjournment141113.pdf)

Creampuff
24th Nov 2013, 21:13
So many words. Soooooo many words.

Remind me: Who in CASA has lost his job as a consequence of all this outrage? Name 1 person.

Remind me: What’s changed. Name 1 change. (And don’t insult my intelligence by quoting more hot air out of a politician’s mouth.)

Does Barrier have an AOC?

What is Senator Fawcett going to find out that he’s not already been told?

You’re being played for fools and, frankly, it's a very easy game to play. :=

Frank Arouet
24th Nov 2013, 22:03
A flood of words and a drought of ideas. I feel sorry for you some times.

Creampuff
24th Nov 2013, 23:11
I’ve already explained on numerous occasions (and free of charge) the only idea that I consider has a snowflake’s hope in hades of resulting in any substantial change.

But let’s put on our ‘glass half full’ hats, and track through what’s going to happen.

(1) There’s going to be a ‘review’ and, finally, all of the truth will come out. (This will be reinforced by all the information provided to Senator Fawcett.) Yep?

(2) There will be a ‘report’ which will make ‘recommendations’ which, if implemented, will finally bring about fundamental root and branch changes to aviation regulation and accident investigation. Yep?

(3) Then the government will implement all those recommendations. Yep?

So, walk me through, in precise terms, what you think the recommendations at (2) will be, Mr Ideas. :ok:

Frank Arouet
25th Nov 2013, 02:50
I better go and have a word with the ills of society. Why don't you have another vat of wine, while you wait?

aroa
25th Nov 2013, 05:10
As a long term member of the Ills of Society, I'll have a guess...

The very salubrious review panel will listen with great interest to stories, many and varied about CAsA, the impact of regs on the viability of GA and the sanity of its participants, some of its star staff performances and etc..

They will then report to the Minister with recommendations.

The Government will adopt those recommendations, and recommend that CAsA adopt those recommendations.

CAsA will then huddle up and form a Committee. That will meet every 6 months, to formulate a plan to advise the Minister on the schedule they will adopt on how the plan will formulate the process of diverting / sorry, adopting the recommendations once the plan is in place. The schedule for the plan to the Minister may be a few years in the making because the changes will be difficult and complex and CAsA is always short of money and properly trained staff.
And there could be legal implications/ complications. The DAS will consult with the Head of Legal Counsel..who will advise at the next Committee sitting...in 5 months or so.
So, in about 2015, with TAP/The Adoption Plan" in place ..and sent to the Minister for review and approval..CAsA will be all waiting and set to go.

2017. Looking good to go. Plan approved and trained staff in place. CASA is bleeding money of course, with "specialist" advisers and "consultants" and asks for more. Since this is not approved because the Government is on the financial ropes, there's a bit of a hold-up, impasse, whatever.

2018 Not to worry CAsA are still keen to divert / sorry, implement the changes, but only those that they want, so there's a bit of a stoush between CASA "experts" and ministerial know-it-alls, some of whom have actually been in an Airbus 330 to Bali for holidays.

2019. This is getting exciting. Looks like a change of Minister. Yehaaa.!
Drinks all round at Fort Fumble.

Emergency committee meeting to recommend changes to the plan to present to the new incumbent re modified recommendations to be defered, some maybe implemented and those that were far too difficult to deal with will be left to wither "off the vine", so to speak. BUT, there is a promise that the final draft of the final CAsR will be ready by 2025. Just a promise, mind.

2020. New Minister wants a halt in order to produce a "White Paper" to elucidate his vision for a new and revitalised Aviation Industry.
These recommendations to be followed by a "Green Paper,to be reviewed by a Committee of Aviation "experts" to see what is feasable. Once that review is tabled, recommendations will be forwarded to CAsA to divert/ sorry, implement the changes.

Its all a bit like the Universe really...it goes on forever.

For further recommendations re any changes to Australian aviation may I suggest Used Boats - New Boats - Search New & Used Boats For Sale - BoatPoint Australia (http://www.boatpoint.com.au) some really lovely escape units with sails which will take you away slowly but surely into distant seas of CAsA free sanity.
sorry 40c

Sarcs
25th Nov 2013, 05:21
From latest AMROBA newsletter: Vol 10 Issue 11 (http://amroba.org.au/files/3913/8458/3287/Vol_10_Issue_11.pdf)

This government has turned the spotlight onto the government departments and agencies involved with the aviation industry.

One cannot imagine support for this Review coming from his own Department let alone CASA or the ATSB.

Mike Mrdyck, Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure; Mike Dolan, ATSB; Allan Hawke, Chair of CASA Board; John McCormick, CEO of CASA and CASA’s Senior Executive would have been against such a review.

The terms of reference for the review clearly demonstrates that this government does not have confidence in the current direction of aviation reform by those persons listed above.:D

AMROBA membership supports the all encompassing review and hope they have enough time to properly analyse the aviation system properly.
We appreciated the LNP policy stating that:
“Labor’s approach to aviation policy over the past six years has seen cost after cost added to the bottom lines of airlines and airports, pilots and passengers.
Together, these measures have made the Australian industry increasingly uncompetitive internationally and have seen many smaller aviation providers struggle to survive.
Government imposed red tape is beginning to overwhelm many smaller and medium-sized businesses which struggle to cope with changing, complicated and confusing requirements.”
To achieve this massive change, they also recognised
that they needed to:
 reform the structure of the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority;
 revitalise the General Aviation Action Agenda;
 enhance aviation skills, training and development.
AMROBA will lobby for:
 A more responsive CASA structure that holds
a senior individual responsible for standards,
regulatory services and oversight for discrete
industry sectors must be an outcome.
 A 3 tier legislative system where ICAO standards
& practices are promulgated by CASA as
‘aviation safety standards’ referred to in
CASRs must also be an outcome.
 A FAR based system for the non-airline sectors
must be another outcome.

And on the Canuck review team member: Minister Truss has announced the team to review aviation in Australia.The terms of reference are fairly broad. Don Spruston has had 6 years as a regulator. He will bring a Canadian perspective to the review of the aviation sectors of Australia.
“Mr. Spruston is the Director General of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC). IBAC is responsible for representing the business aviation community worldwide. Don has held this position since the beginning of 1999.
Prior to assuming his present role, Mr. Spruston held numerous positions in the field of aviation, including managing partner of Canadian Aviation
Safety Associates where he conducted evaluations of civil aviation authorities and was advisor to ICAO in establishing the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program.
Prior to this Mr. Spruston spent 6 ½ years as Director General of Civil Aviation in Canada. He also gained considerable experience as an aircraft operator as Director General of Aircraft Services where he managed a flight department of over 90 aircraft. He also held a number of air traffic management positions including the Regional Director of Air Navigation in Transport Canada’s Pacific Region.
Mr. Spruston holds a Bachelor of Sciences degree from the Royal Military College of Canada. He has an Airline Transport Pilot Licence and has flown in various roles, such as worldwide cargo operations, VIP transport and system evaluation flying. He has written numerous articles on aviation safety and has won awards such as the Transport Canada Safety Award, Canadian Owners and Pilots President Award and the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute C.D. Howe Award.”

Let us hope that he listens to the plight of the industry in this country. Even if he makes comparisons with the Canadian system, we would be
better off than the direction we are heading.

They have an Act, Regulations that provide a head of power for Transport Canada to promulgate standards. Their standards are based on

ICAO Annex standards — a 3 tier legal system.
Mr Spruston's past experience as a Transport Canada regulator will have him comparing our convoluted regulation system to this...Canadian Aviation Regulations. (http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regserv/Affairs/cars/menu.htm)..:ok:

Paragraph377
25th Nov 2013, 06:03
I hope Mr Spruston brings with him a good sense of humour and a party hat because if he does a thorough job he will realise this;

- He has stepped into a bizarre labyrinth of voodoo mystical magic where industry is dressed up as piñata's and beaten mercilessly with big sticks by the kids from Canberra.
- He will discover a bureaucracy filled with overflowing troughs, sideshow alley style regulatory antics and even the odd bearded woman.
- Then there is the DOIT laughing clowns in which industry places it's declining income into the mouth of the clowns head only to win......nothing.
- But don't forget to buy your Parts 61 and 145 show bags which contain empty promises and nothing but the latest CASA newsletter and references to 'attainable safety', 'achievable outcomes' and other hollow statements.
- There will be riotous fun in the spooky House of Mirrors at Brisbane's regional field office where mi mi mi Beaker and Fort Fumbles finest spin doctors will hold up audit and investigation reports, internal processes and accounts reports to the mirrors which then twist and distort the material in an attempt to fool the unwary Spruston.

Who knows, Mr Spruston may be met by CASA's own version of a balmy army in which the wily hecklers tease and taunt Mr Spruston in an attempt to distract him from the job at hand?
I wonder if Sky Sentinel will be used to track his whereabouts as he strolls through the bowels of Fort Fumble, alerting the GWM whenever Mr Spruston detects a nugget?

Sunfish
25th Nov 2013, 06:31
Creamy, you are mostly right, the politicians can be snowed almost all of the time by public servants, an d this strategy has served DOT, CASA and ATSB well over the decades.

However there is one group that those gentlemen rightly fear as I have said: the good,folk at PM&C. They are public servants too, so the bullshit spinning doesn't work on them, they are whip smart and know exactly how to go for the jugular of fat and happy public servants who think they have it made.

If these folk get sicced on DOT, CASA and ATSB, then watch the fun, they don't stand a chance. It would be a foolish bureaucrat who calculated that PM&C are too busy to notice them.

The way they would do it is probably a masterful series of amendments to the appropriate legislation that would cut the feet out from under the targets and no one would be the wiser except for you lot.

VR-HFX
25th Nov 2013, 07:51
Sunfish

How right you are.Cannibalism is a favourite pastime in some circles in Canberra.

PM&C are the piranhas of the bureaucracy.

Their target often disappears without leaving even a fingerprint let alone a trace of genetic material.:ok:

Capt Casper
25th Nov 2013, 08:01
This thread is unintelligible to most mortals who do not follow every intricacy of the political intrigue of CASA and politics. As an instance who is “Wazza”? I honestly haven’t a clue.
I don’t want an on line answer to my question. A PM would be welcome.
I live in an electorate with a new Liberal member of parliament.
I am sure, that if accurate, succinct complaints could be placed before our parliamentarians, the pressure could be ramped up on the enquiry.
To that end, may I suggest a “stickied” forum of real complaints in simple language that the poster would be prepared to put his/her signature to, not on line of course, but if requested by a parliamentarian’s office. The contact can still be via a personal email to the anonymous Pprune address.
Each Ppruner can then put up or shut up via their local Federal MP and senator.
As the the thread grows pressure can be sought from the press, industry organisations and local IT media.
I am happy to bombard my member with every item I can, but I know if I just write a letter or email it will be insignificant in his other electoral issues.
If we want to progress the issue, it has to be “grass roots”, consistent, accurate and passionate, with widespread input – ie as many electorates and senators that we can reach involved.
If they don’t come on board write a direct letter asking why.
It is no use reading, the issue requires DOING!

Creampuff
25th Nov 2013, 08:23
Sunfish

Whatever else Federal politicians are, stupid they ain’t.

They aren’t being snowed by anybody.

They’ve snowed you and lots of others into believing that they’d intervene, if only they could understand the issues. Of course, the issues are so complex that lives would be at risk if they didn’t leave the experts in CASA to manage them, wouldn’t they?

Fawcett obviously has no idea. Heffernan; none. Nash; nada. Entsch; frozen with fear. Truss; powerless.

The mystique of aviation and all that.

If only someone in government understood the issues and had power to change things.

Alas, change can only be achieved after a ‘review’.

I say again: You’re being played for fools and, frankly, it's a very easy game to play.

Watch what happens with the promise to properly index DFRDB pensions. Another bunch of voters with the attention span of goldfish.

No Hoper
25th Nov 2013, 09:55
Creampuff, I like your take on these matters. Barrier no longer has an AOC so would be a moot argument, they would not be just given one on the say so of a Minister, unless I totally misunderstand the system.

Similar to you, I have seen the passing of many of these inquiries with no real changes.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
25th Nov 2013, 16:25
I'm thinking about submitting the recent senate report. Complete with 26 recommendations and sen X's additional comments.

Change the name, abolish or reestablish the board etc.

It will be interesting to watch although it could be another Groundhog Day. I hope not. Only time will tell.

Although I urge people to submit. The weight of all those submissions may just work.

Sunfish
25th Nov 2013, 22:36
Creampuff:

They’ve snowed you and lots of others into believing that they’d intervene, if only they could understand the issues. Of course, the issues are so complex that lives would be at risk if they didn’t leave the experts in CASA to manage them, wouldn’t they?

Fawcett obviously has no idea. Heffernan; none. Nash; nada. Entsch; frozen with fear. Truss; powerless.

The mystique of aviation and all that

Creamy, this is where we differ. Many other public service institutions have decided to rely on the "technical complexity" and "risk" defences and they are now extinct. PM&C are quite capable of finding their own experts, if they in fact needed them.

In fact there are Two arguments that trump the "expert" defence every time and PM&C are the absolute masters of them: simple economics and administrative efficiency.

If, as I hope they will, somebody casts their eye over the cost and outputs of the regulatory reform program bells will ring. If they then look at the sheer volume of regulation compared to lot her countries, more bells will ring. If they then look at the economic costs of regulation on the Australian GA industry compared to other countries, the bells will reach a crescendo.

Then when they look at administrative efficiency, the first thing that will hit them is the shear lunacy of multiple inconsistent interpretations of the regulations and their complexity compared to the rest of the world, for example an FOI, when asked why there isn't a simple checklist of what is required of a private pilot flying a C172 to successfully complete any ramp check anywhere in the country told my friend that it was "Too complicated"!!!!! That should make another cathedral full of bells start ringing!

Then when they look at work flow, "projects", lines of authority, approvals, not to mention enforcement actions, there is a whole other mess to be found. Finally they will look at the likes of Barrier, Polar, Quadrio, hempel and others and the penny will drop.

CASA needs to be broken up. the ATSB needs its full independence restored and confidentiality restored by the creation of a strict liability offence for any ATSB person to breath a word to anyone. There needs to be an economic fostering clause in the legislation and enforcement must be totally separated from rule making.

It can be done. PM&C people could do it over a weekend if they aren't too busy.

Creampuff
25th Nov 2013, 23:57
You miss my point (which may have been poorly expressed).

The government understands, completely, all of the issues and options.

The government is not snowed by the mystique of aviation.

The government isn’t doing anything, because it doesn’t need or want to do anything.

Mssrs Forsyth, Whitefied, Reiss and Spruston will feed the industry chooks for a few months to keep them distracted, the report of the review will be feted by the usual suspects then gather dust in the usual way. Job done.

Frank Arouet
26th Nov 2013, 03:20
Someone should get rid of the rooster. He keeps turning the light off at the end of the tunnel.

gaunty
26th Nov 2013, 07:29
Creamie me old,

i have stayed away from these forums as apart from the same old, same old, not much of any proactive stuff I see, with the same tired old characters endlessly remembering the war and past glories.

i am disappointed that your continued exposure to it and the gallant efforts to maintain CDF here have blunted your previous edge.

Our friend Sunfish is right it can be done.

i have been called a lot of things mostly on these forums but naive I'm not when I say that I think this Government is waay different and the the terms of the review are very well informed and serious in their intent.

if you don't embrace change it will never happen

The usual suspects around here need to get their heads out of that place and get working on a really professional submission simply stating the issues, facts and recommendations and devoid of war stories, ego, grandstanding or personnel assassination, they have not the time nor interest

i have seen a couple of proposed industry submissions and I can only say they were so incompetent i would be ashamed to be included as one of said industry. If that the best we can do then God help us.

i know at least two of the panel fairly well and that will an instant turn off.

These guys have serious creds.

Get help, professional help in defining and framing up your submission and go do it.

This will be the last chance in most of our lifetimes.

Good luck

thorn bird
26th Nov 2013, 08:03
Gaunty me old,
there is really only two real issues.

1. Do you support an aviation industry in Australia or not?

2. Do you accept that corruption within the current regulator is perfectly acceptable or not?

If the answer to 1. is yes then there needs to be some fundamental changes in the way we regulate, because right now we are exporting our industry to our neighbours who have proper regulations.

If the answer to 2. is yes, then we are all screwed, not just the aviation industry, "banana republic" comes to mind.

Creampuff
26th Nov 2013, 08:07
Great to hear from you, gaunty! :ok:

I agree: It can be done.

I agree: It can be done, but only if it’s done professionally.

I’ve been trying to make those very points - evidently poorly.

I’d add only this: Unless the non-major party aligned Senators with effect 1 July 2014 are convinced of the benefits of the recommendations arising from the ‘review’, those recommendations ain’t goin’ nowhere, ‘serious creds’ or not.

So….. some - in my opinion, most - of that professional submission-making horsepower must, in my opinion, be allocated to convincing non-major party aligned Senators with effect 1 July 2014 in parallel to the review.

Frank Arouet
26th Nov 2013, 08:26
Bloody hell, Gaunty of all people! Here, giving advice!

i know at least two of the panel fairly well and that will an instant turn off.

I guess you don't like them?

These guys have serious creds.

No, I guess you like them after all?

i have seen a couple of proposed industry submissions and I can only say they were so incompetent

So this is why you would be ashamed to be party to "that" industry, or have you now entertained the idea of putting your own submission for us to judge your competence? Maybe you and Creamy should do a joint submission?

One thing is for sure, we can't call you a "usual suspect", being unusual and all that.

BTW Are you still painting that pot black?

Sunfish
26th Nov 2013, 20:53
Creampuff is simply wrong about government motivation to do any thing.

Repeat after me: jobs, investment, growth.

I am in sunny Broome at present. Do you think I could find someone to fly me to Cape Leveque and back yesterday? Nope.

All I see at present everywhere I go are parked aircraft. Port Hedland tonight if I don't hit a Roo.

Jobs, investment, growth. those are the three buttons that MUST be pushed in EVERY submission.

Creampuff
26th Nov 2013, 21:06
So where does ‘stop the boats’ fit into that mantra, oh government guru?

The new government’s highest priority has nothing to do with jobs, investment or growth. :=

It’s all about populism, sunny, because it’s all about gaining and maintaining power. :=

And aviation reform doesn’t make a schmick of difference to any government’s electoral fortunes.

How the non major party aligned Senators vote, does.

T28D
26th Nov 2013, 21:25
AH Creamy , Words, Words, lots of words, no affirmative thought or let alone action, but lots of words.

Sunfish
26th Nov 2013, 22:03
Creampuff, you just wait until the economy craters a little more. Once that happens the Governments ONLY priorities will be jobs, investment and growth. I worked in Government during Jeff Kennetts tenure when Victoria was a basket case and when it's " man the pumps" time, jobs investment and growth are all that matters.

That is why I said in my template for the review is that the first thing that needs to be done is for an economist to run a tape measure over the segments, charter, GA, regional and recreation and set out the number of jobs , investment and growth history of each of them.

It is then a simple step to look at the impediments to more jobs, more investment and more growth and make assumptions about what employment and investment and growth could be generated is the impediments were removed.

If the job growth and dollar numbers are substantially positive and big enough, then tHe Government will move, if not, you are stuck with CASA(the main impediment).

Creampuff
27th Nov 2013, 01:33
AH Creamy , Words, Words, lots of words, no affirmative thought or let alone action, but lots of words.My apologies.

I thought that pointing out what I consider to be the only remotely realistic and practical way of bringing about real change might be helpful.

And you wonder why GA in Australia is treated like a doormat. :rolleyes:

Paragraph377
27th Nov 2013, 04:30
You know its funny, but among the pagan peoples of ancient times, including the Greeks and Romans, one’s fate, particularly the length of the individual’s life, was often considered to be determined beforehand for all individuals by the gods. This could be likened to an operators AOC or COA, with CAsA as ‘he who holds your fate in his hands’. Grecian mythology represented the control of men’s destiny by three goddesses (or modern day DAS’s);

Clotho (spinner), who spun the thread of life. Or who today spins the facts in general! A lot of spinning is coming up when the Truss review hits full tilt. Then you have;

Lachesis (disposer of lots), who determined the length of life. Or by today’s standard determines how long you keep your AOC or COA, which in turn determines whether you will have an inheritance to leave your kids or if you will be sent to the wall. And they dispose of your lots when you win in the AAT and they then still fight you in court. And;

Atropos (inflexible), who cut life off when the time expired. Once the CAsA have had enough of playing with you, wringing you out and running your fighting funds into the sewer they bury the hatchet on you.

A similar triad was found among the Roman deities. So my guess is that CAsA actually has bloodlines that stretch back to the Roman Empire. Spooky isn’t it?

Frank Arouet
27th Nov 2013, 06:26
I see your point. There was a lot of incest going on then and now. Some say it's a rite of passage, or is that right of passage?


Enter the rough end of the pineapple to use on someone's passage, right?

Sarcs
28th Nov 2013, 02:02
Creamy: My apologies.

I thought that pointing out what I consider to be the only remotely realistic and practical way of bringing about real change might be helpful.

And you wonder why GA in Australia is treated like a doormat. The Minister's rep at the Sup Estimates...

..."Senator SINODINOS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fbv7%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I think we are in furious agreement..."

Perhaps we (concerted we..;)) should be lobbying Senator X :ok:(if he is not already) to lobby and educate the independent Senators elect so that they are fully briefed and onside prior to the Govt response to the TASRR report/recommendations??:rolleyes:


Creamy may think this an exercise in abject futility... " Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever?"...however I am of the firm belief that there is still much to learn from history and human (repeated) mistakes of the past.:cool:


To that end...a little birdy, called P3.5 (fellow lover of history, fine wines and trolling the internet), sent me a link for an internet search that he initiated while compiling a timeline (how droll??) of the RRP, which brings up some interesting observations: Aviation Safety Regulatory Review Taskforce (https://www.google.com.au/#q=Aviation+Safety+Regulatory+Review+Taskforce)

Sarcs note: OBS1 is there have been multiple such reviews, of similar titles, dating back to the mid 90's (no surprises there I guess); OBS2 from the first 2 pages at least, the subject matter (RRP drifting along forever) is an inherently Australian reoccurring issue i.e. other NAA's have either resolved their version of RRP or didn't have a problem in the first place.:ugh:

Ok just cherry-picking some of the search entries it becomes obvious that throughout the industry there are some extremely experienced wise old heads amongst us, all with common themes, concerns and solutions to fix the RRP bug bear that is slowly but surely strangling the GA industry.:{

Example: The AAA Forum Aviation Policy (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CEUQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerialag.com.au%2FLinkClick.aspx%3Ffile ticket%3DzzfaDm9bLm4%253D%26tabid%3D189%26mid%3D654%26forced ownload%3Dtrue&ei=uZOWUoOGOsm1iAeosYDACA&usg=AFQjCNEyUDMF4vnJ5j7b1NkhLp8zpcnIWQ)

It is also obvious that if industry cannot show a unified approach then Creamy's prophesy, on the outcome of the TASRR, will come true and it will be yet another wasted opportunity....:= In sticking with the Greek/Roman theme Aesop once wrote in his fable, The Four Oxen and the Tiger..."United we conquer, divided we fall" ...

And a quote from aforementioned The AAA Forum Aviation Policy (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CEUQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerialag.com.au%2FLinkClick.aspx%3Ffile ticket%3DzzfaDm9bLm4%253D%26tabid%3D189%26mid%3D654%26forced ownload%3Dtrue&ei=uZOWUoOGOsm1iAeosYDACA&usg=AFQjCNEyUDMF4vnJ5j7b1NkhLp8zpcnIWQ):

The Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum is an alliance of Australia’s major peak aviation associations to ensure the industry presents a united voice to government on key aviation issues and policy, characterised by expertise and the widest possible representation of people and organisations involved in aviation.
IMO (and in 'furious agreement' with Creamy:E) the internet search shows, more than anything else, that we have enough documented evidence and empty worded rhetoric to prove our case, now it is a matter of offering unified solutions to address the endless waste of public funds and the festering cancer that is the RRP:yuk:...:ok:

NOTAM: The BRB's field trip this Sundy will now be convened at the Lake Burley Griffin Yacht Club (RSVP to "K").

Creampuff
28th Nov 2013, 04:07
Perhaps we (concerted we..) should be lobbying Senator X (if he is not already) to lobby and educate the independent Senators elect so that they are fully briefed and onside prior to the Govt response to the TASRR report/recommendations??Gee, I wish I’d thought of that …

I’d do that, as well as lobby the Senators elect, directly, to follow Senator X’s lead on matters aviation.

All it would take is a one sentence email. And anything more than a one sentence email will be ineffective.

BTW: I use the phrase ‘non-major party aligned Senators’, instead of ‘independent’ Senators, deliberately. Don’t underestimate the willingness of the Greens to trade off and leverage off ‘non-Green’ issues to get progress on their policies.

But don’t listen to me: It's just words and I have absolutely no idea about how Canberra or the Federal Parliament works …

Kharon
28th Nov 2013, 18:24
Sarcs # 90 –"OBS2 from the first 2 pages at least, the subject matter (RRP drifting along forever) is an inherently Australian reoccurring issue i.e. other NAA's have either resolved their version of RRP or didn't have a problem in the first place'.
This certainly is the big question, thousands of words, hundreds of pages and only the gods know how much money has been thrown at 'it'. Why has reform not happened?. As Sarcs points out, there have been some very wise heads provide options and answers, present great submissions and even offered to help. The search string gives you all of this, in spades.

Time to answer the 200 million dollar question. Why has the RRP drifted along? The answers are not in the search string, you need to go one step further to reach Nirvana. Track backwards from the outcome – in the space (where no one can hear you scream) between the published official result sent out and the carefully prepared submissions going in. A mysterious transition occurs. The time honoured process of Ozfucation has been refined to a black art wherein diversion, fear, mystique, dilution and masterful deception are prerequisites of the game. Beware Grasshopper, the treasure can be winkled out but the protection of secrets in the Murky Machiavellian underworld is fierce.

I would be cautious about the 'lobbying' of the non aligned. While I mildly agree in principal with Creamy, we are not privy to the internal machinations or the wheels within wheels of political life. Indications are that despite some furious internal manoeuvring the servants of the public are not going to have it all their own way. With a bit of luck, history will not be allowed to repeat. I will await the Fawcett drafted ministerial response to Pel Air, that will tell the tale and perhaps indicate whether it is worthwhile writing a submission.

Just an afterthought, but a simple one sentence email is a great idea. The AAAA, AHIA, RAAA and AMROBA will be making well drafted, sensible submissions; the IOS could send a note of support for any or all of these. Much better than bashing out a half arsed submission doomed to become shelf-ware. Nice one Creamy.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Creampuff
28th Nov 2013, 19:31
Time to answer the 200 million dollar question. Why has the RRP drifted along?Because successive governments have allowed it to drift along.

The important 200 million dollar question is: Why have successive governments allowed it to drift along?

Answer: Because it makes not a schmick of difference to the electoral fortunes of the major parties: The electorate inevitably gives them alternating turns at the trough.

Yes, the Frankenstein continues to eat money and leave a trail of destruction in the GA sector with no improvement in safety outcomes. But those outcomes haven’t and won’t make or break any government. So they only need to pretend to care.

The collection of Senators with the balance of power in the Senate and the freedom to vote in accordance with their conscience rather than the party’s dictation are the glimmer of hope. :ok:

Sarcs
29th Nov 2013, 22:54
Top catch CJ, RAAA and well scribed SC (MMSM)!:D

Once upon a time that would have been lost in the glossy pages of the Fort Fumble Annual Report and eventually be left to gather dust with the other 1000's of ozfuscated documents in FF's shelfware warehouse :ugh:.

Moving right along...noticed the Phearless leader has notified the Minister that FF has got the Minister's back on this whole TASRR thing, DAS (dis)missive to the Minister {can't imagine it is addressed to anyone else but the Minister..:rolleyes:??}:
26 November 2013 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101831)

Dear Minister,

CASA was pleased to see the announcement by the Federal Government this month of the independent review of aviation safety in Australia. The review is an opportunity for everyone in aviation to think carefully about important issues, to put forward constructive ideas for change and to see how Australia compares with other leading aviation nations. It gives individuals and organisations the chance to have their say, including agencies such as CASA. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss, told Parliament the Government is determined to ensure everything is done to make Australia’s aviation safety system even better. This is a goal CASA wholeheartedly supports and indeed works to every single day. When CASA develops new regulations, carries out surveillance, conducts an audit or delivers safety education our aim is to improve the outcomes of our aviation safety system. We are always striving to do this as effectively and efficiently as possible and the review will assist us by benchmarking our work and identifying opportunities for improvement.

Importantly, the review is looking at both the structures, effectiveness and processes of all the agencies involved in aviation safety, as well as the relationships and interactions of the agencies. CASA understands and values the importance of our relationship with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and we have processes in place to ensure the outcomes of the Bureau’s investigations are carefully analysed and appropriate regulatory and safety actions are taken. Any steps that can be taken to further develop our relationship with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and other aviation agencies, will be positive both for CASA and the aviation safety system. Another important area to be considered by the review is the burden and costs of regulation. Mr Truss told Parliament: “The Government has a clear policy of reducing the cost of regulation to business, and this goal will be part of the review. If there are ways to improve our safety outcomes and reduce the regulatory burden and the costs imposed on industry, then we can create a win-win outcome for the Australian economy overall.” CASA already takes the costs of regulation into account when developing and implementing safety standards and we welcome this aspect of the review. While achieving the best possible safety outcomes must always come first, CASA understands regulation must not be an unnecessary drag on aviation activity. The review is scheduled to report to Mr Truss by May 2014 and will be undertaking extensive industry and public consultation over the coming months.

Find out more about the independent review of aviation safety (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx).

Best regards

John F McCormick
So Minister all's well at Sleepy Hollow!:E

Kharon
30th Nov 2013, 01:42
Sarcs #95 –"Phearless leader has notified the Minister that FF has got the Minister's back on this whole TASRR thing, DAS (dis)missive to the Minister {can't imagine it is addressed to anyone else but the Minister. Thing that gets the elephants panties in a bunch is that the glove puppet actually thinks that anyone, without a lobotomy that is, could believe the constant flow of carefully polished propaganda. For example IOS sensible argument Captain Woodward said the Civil Aviation Order governing flight and duty time limitations also failed to meet the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s test of being based on “scientific principles and knowledge”.

AIPA believes that a scientific review of the proposed limits is necessary, ensuring efficiency is balanced with flight safety through principles developed by thorough scientific analysis, not lobbying. The motion to disallow CAO 48.1 will allow all industry stakeholders to go back to the table with CASA and produce legislation that is more aligned to international best practice, which will provide an outcome that is significantly better for public safety.”
Guess who - a rebuttal?
–"In summary, no matter what you may have heard, and contrary to some of the ill-informed statements in the aviation press, the new flight crew fatigue management rules provide a substantive improvement in the level of safety over and above the old rules. Modern, and well developed regulations and more effective surveillance and enforcement will improve aviation safety in Australia, and in this, CASA has the support and endorsement of the majority of the industry
Sarcs – AQW - Paul Phelan owns the handle Pheerles; as a rule, he is a gentle-man of the first water, but when misquoted, well, things may change grasshopper..... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif....:D

aroa
30th Nov 2013, 05:25
Would that the Dear Minister just respond with a "Dear John" and get it over with, so we wouldnt have to put up with this crap.:ok::ok:

Kharon
1st Dec 2013, 20:31
Seems the Bully boys v IOS exhibition bout is still on, short odds on Xenophon today; be odds on tomorrow.
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 [F2013L00258] Senator Xenophon on 24/6/2013 On 27/6/2013 Senator Xenophon postponed his notice to move that the order be disallowed to the next day of sitting The notice had not been resolved when the 43rd Parliament was prorogued on 5/8/2013. The order will be deemed to be tabled again in the Senate on the first sitting day of the 44th Parliament, so that disallowance action may start afresh (subsection 42(3), Legislative Instruments Act 2003). Another IOS tag team member about to enter the fray. Not sure that Ian McDonald will ever get over his visit to the AMROBA meeting.
7 Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Corporate plan 2013-14 to 2015-16
Adjourned debate on the motion of Senator Macdonald—That the Senate take note of the document (Senator Macdonald, in continuation, 14 November 2013).

77 Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Report for 2012-13
Adjourned debate on the motion of Senator Macdonald—That the Senate take note of the document (Senator Macdonald, in continuation, 13 November 2013).
Aye well, it's nice to live in 'interesting times'; sometimes......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

601
1st Dec 2013, 23:53
The order will be deemed to be tabled again in the Senate on the first sitting day of the 44th Parliament, so that disallowance action may start afresh

So does that mean another 15 sitting days before it is resolved?

Creampuff
2nd Dec 2013, 00:13
At least, unless the Senate resolves to disallow, sooner.

A (new) motion to disallow must first be moved within 15 sitting days of the deemed tabling.

If a (new) motion to disallow is moved within 15 sitting days of the deemed tabling and the (in this case) Senate resolves within a further 15 sitting days of the Senate to disallow the instrument, or the notice is not withdrawn or otherwise disposed of within 15 sitting days, the instrument then ceases to have effect.

If a new motion to disallow was moved in the Senate e.g. today, 15 sitting days will elapse around mid-March 2014.

Kharon
2nd Dec 2013, 18:22
When I was very young, the Alice in Wonderland story seemed to be set in a very strange world indeed. Happily after a bit of guidance it all made sense; I expect the ways of the political world will eventually make sense. But at the moment, 'tis a puzzle.

The Regulatory review was scheduled in the Senate yesterday afternoon. Having both the time and (passing) interest, I watched the telecast....Baffled -...When Hansard comes out, I'll try to make more sense of it all; but looking back at yesterdays notes I have to say I just don't get it.

There were 'Albo and white paper' songs of praise; chorus led by Stearle. Up until then I had a modicum of respect for the man but as I listened, it dawned on me. These folk have not the first blind clue. No one properly briefed could make such speeches, unless it's a game of positioning. But the rest of the speakers, even ol' McDonald, left the feeling that a well polished turd was about to be put in a glass case and parked on the posterity shelf.

Probably my own fault, shouldn't have listened. My hope is that they were clearing the decks for a retrospective "Oh really – I am so surprised" speech... They all 'begged leave' to speak again later. Anyway – we shall wait for the trusty Hansard, perhaps that stalwart can un-riddle that which puzzles me, bit like Alice's tale when I was younger..... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Sarcs
2nd Dec 2013, 22:29
Othello: "...'twas strange, 'twas passing strange, 'twas pitiful, 'twas wondrous pitiful..."

Hansard - Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fb80082a5-37ac-4a37-8680-65e0bb111f54%2F0078;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fb8008 2a5-37ac-4a37-8680-65e0bb111f54%2F0205%22)

Actually the rhetoric recorded in the Hansard will not make it any clearer "K", so your summary IMO is spot on.:D To put it in context it was just an official tabling and recognition of the Minister's statement (14/11/13) on the ASRR, kind of like a tick-a-box routine.:E

Besides the vomitus maximus :yuk::yuk: blurb by Sterle on Albo's performance as the previous Minister and the great Labor government initiative of the GWEP, the scene was set at the start by Sterle's statement: I can say as chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for the last six years, and now as chair of the references committee, that when we do address aviation safety it is bipartisan, and done very closely in association with the Greens and the minor parties as well. I acknowledge that the new government did not make this matter a political football in opposition, and we do not intend to make it one either. The wind was officially out of the sails of anyone that had any intention of attacking the previous government's oversight performance of aviation safety after that. So then we were left with the political posturing, empty worded rhetoric and the age old barrier of the 'mystique of aviation safety' (i.e leave it to the experts:rolleyes:).

Senator Sterle: As Shadow Minister Albanese recently said, this balancing is best done by experts, not by politicians. Hear, hear! I could not agree more. All of the Senators present were ill prepared and all seemed to be tip toeing around the elephant in the room:ugh:. Senator MacDonald was the only one that went remotely close : There was also a very great concern about Australia apparently following a European model, if I can say that broadly, of civil aviation regulation and safety when perhaps we would have been better off following the New Zealand experience and regulations of recent times. I must confess I did not fully understand all of the elements of what is obviously a detailed area of learning and expertise of operations but it was clear to me that the administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority did need some looking at. Wishy washy, going through the motions and tentative at best, stark contrast to Senator X in the PelAir report where he takes the elephant head on :D:
1.23 It is my view that CASA, under Mr McCormick, has become a regulatory bully that appears to take any action available to ensure its own shortcomings are not made public. This poses great risks to aviation safety, and the safety of the travelling public. Equally, the ATSB—which should fearlessly expose any shortcomings on the part of CASA and other organisations to improve aviation safety—has become institutionally timid and appears to lack the strength to perform its role adequately. Both agencies require a complete overhaul, and I believe it is only luck that their ineptness has not resulted in further deaths so far. There is an urgent need for an Inspector-General of Aviation Safety, entirely independent of the Minister and his department, to be a watchdog for these agencies.
Oh well it seems we are reliant on a small contingent of good Senators, ably backed by expert IOS advice, to answer the question of...'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' (Who will keep the keepers themselves)?:ok:

Creampuff
2nd Dec 2013, 23:09
Proof Hansard here: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/b80082a5-37ac-4a37-8680-65e0bb111f54/toc_pdf/Senate_2013_12_02_2125.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Search “Ministerial Statements”.

There were 'Albo and white paper' songs of praise; chorus led by Stearle. Up until then I had a modicum of respect for the man but as I listened, it dawned on me. These folk have not the first blind clue. No one properly briefed could make such speeches, unless it's a game of positioning. But the rest of the speakers, even ol' McDonald, left the feeling that a well polished turd was about to be put in a glass case and parked on the posterity shelf.

Quite so. It’s merely one Laborial hand languidly washing the other, as before.

Kharon
3rd Dec 2013, 19:40
Just re read the four pages of absolute fury written yesterday as I read Hansard. I was going to post them; but won't now....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif
This is a result of the efforts of governments of all persuasions, which have never made aviation safety a political issue, The notes will be distributed to the BRB at Burley Griffin on the week end; should provide some laughs/tears/ outrage. I have decided this is all, in part, my fault. I can't believe 'we' are so gullible, short sighted and disinterested after being wearied by the endless hammering during election events: that we not only vote for these people, but pay them as well. Perhaps the IOS need to start asking exactly what these highly paid people eat for breakfast or, is it something in the Canberra water?

Yup, my bad. Should never have listened to the speeches let alone follow it up on Hansard. It's disgraceful, and yet we not only pay for this, we tolerate it?

We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, with so little, for so long, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing. K - "This complete cock up is a result of the efforts of governments of all persuasions". etc.

Steam Off.

PAIN_NET
3rd Dec 2013, 20:14
Just to hand. Extracted text with no guarantee of probity. My bolding.


The Royal Victorian Aero club is hosting a meeting with the review committee at Moorabbin on Friday December 13th. Mr Phillip Reiss of AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association) appears to be managing the invitations.

On the same day (Friday December 13th) AMROBA (Aviation Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul Business Association) is also holding a meeting of its members at Moorabbin, with exactly the same timetable (10.00 to 15.00).

Similar meetings are planned for two other general aviation airports - Archerfield and Bankstown, and that Phillip Reiss of AOPA is organising the invitations. An extremely large percentage of aircraft owners and pilots are not members of AOPA and would not be aware that AOPA has been nominated as an industry representative body.

P4. a.k.a. The Ferret.

Frank Arouet
3rd Dec 2013, 20:53
AOPA is an American organization.


AOPAA is an Australian organization.


Exactly who is purporting to represent me? I'm a member of neither.

Sarcs
4th Dec 2013, 05:09
PAIN:The Royal Victorian Aero club is hosting a meeting with the review committee at Moorabbin on Friday December 13th. Mr Phillip Reiss of AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association) appears to be managing the invitations. Before the announcement of the TASRR I had never heard of this :mad: NOAOPA character...so who is he and what possible credibility does he have??:yuk::yuk: {Hmmm..might have to put my research cap on, not big on conspiracy but there sure looks like some incestual behaviour going on here??}

If the above rumour is true and this bozo is holding a meeting with the review committee on the same day and time that AMROBA are holding their meeting (with Senator Fawcett in attendance)...FFS what gives??:ugh: :ugh:

Or maybe the tapmaker (I know different spelling:E) is so out of touch with the industry that he hasn't the first clue that some real bona fide industry stakeholders are holding a similar style meeting not two blocks away...:rolleyes:

Benefit of the doubt.:confused:.nah I don't think so!

My bet...'conflictus de causa!' :=

psMinister I know your quite busy right now, what with working on your response to the PelAir report etc, but could you slide a memo to Kingcrat to put out an address for submissions as my draft box is nearly full of final edit submissions from some real bona fide industry stakeholders..cheers Sarcs

Dated today see link: TASRR (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx)

Information on how to make a submission to the review will be available on this website in the near future.
:zzz:

pps And Minister forget that NAOPA character...hmm I heard that Mr Kilin a former FF employee and GA industry stalwart has plenty of time on his hands...:E

Kharon
4th Dec 2013, 17:41
Regulation Review is up and away (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1786)

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review announced by Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss on November 14 will open at the end of this week when Chairman David Forsyth is joined on the ASRR panel by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the United Kingdom. The two visiting panellists are expected to arrive in Australia this weekend.

The minister will announce the launch officially this Friday (January 6), and submissions will be open until the end of January 2014.

The Review Panel is planning to meet in the first week with members of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport because of its engagement in a range of aviation issues.

Mr Forsyth says he is looking forward to a busy few months engaging with interested parties from all aviation sectors: “The Panel wants to hear views from across the aviation sector to understand how the system works, what the issues are and how improvements can be made. Your experience is important and your input will be appreciated,” he says.

The program will be supported by print and on-line advertising in a range of aviation press through December and January, and submissions should be made against the Terms of Reference. Submissions can be made through the Aviation Safety Regulation Review webpage from the end of this week.

The Review Panel has already planned a quick round of scoping consultations in the week of 9 December 2013 in Canberra, Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne with airline and general aviation stakeholders. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday they will meet with Senate committee members including Sen David Fawcett, Bankstown stakeholders and government agencies including CASA and ATSB. The schedule then takes them to Parafield on Thursday, where they will meet South Australian and Western Australian operators, and to Moorabbin on Friday 13.

These are introductory meetings to allow the panel to gauge some of the industry’s views early in the review process. Mr Phillip Reiss, who has been engaged as a specialist adviser on issues affecting the general aviation sector, has assisted in arranging some of the meetings, but invitees have not been limited to AOPA members.

Unfortunately the panel’s Moorabbin meeting was planned before Department organisers were told that the Aviation Maintenance and Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) had already scheduled a meeting with Victorian stakeholders at Moorabbin on the same day, chaired by Senator Fawcett, who has a keen and constructive interest in regulatory affairs. However, the panel will almost certainly have separate sessions with AMROBA at some other time, and Mr Forsyth has already spoken with its Executive Director Ken Cannane.

At this stage, the Review Panel is proposing to undertake extensive face-to-face consultation across all States and Territories once the public submission process has closed and the key strategic or systemic issues have been identified. Whilst it won’t be possible to meet with every aviation business and association during the review, Mr Forsyth says the Panel would welcome suggestions as to potential meetings. These suggestions can be made through the public submission process.

Wow, that was quick; and so the Forsyth saga gets on the road. Does this mean that the Murky Machiavellian department of dirty tricks are already out there, muddying the water, changing the road signs, draining petrol tanks and issuing dodgy invitations to the carefully selected chosen few. We shall see.

They are already off to a bad start. If this panel expect to be taken seriously they could begin by using the press as quickly to answer a couple of questions, up front. I'm sure PP would publish the answers.

Mr Phillip Reiss, who has been engaged as a specialist adviser on issues affecting the general aviation sector, etc.

What criteria was used to select Reiss as the "specialist advisor"?

What was the selection process?

Who else was considered for the lucrative little earner?

Who decided that Reiss is the Guru of all things GA?

You see I'm curious to know why a dwindling, insignificant organisation representing perhaps a few hundred private aircraft owners which essentially sells advertising and publishes a few magazines, is "the" organisation to represent GA, not to mention the potential for 'conflict of interest' creeping into the pot at a later date. Risky strategy - you bet.

Then there is this soft soap bollocks about the Melbourne meetings, the panel sitting contemplating their collective navels in one room, AMROBA and Fawcett doing the heavy lifting in the other. If this mob were fair dinkum, they would apologise and toddle along to the Ken and David show, sit at the back and listen. They would learn more there in a morning session that they ever would from "selected" invitees.

Not an auspicious beginning though, is it? Maybe my old wooden head is still reeling from the Senate dribble I forced it to wade through.

Creampuff
4th Dec 2013, 19:32
Just re read the four pages of absolute fury written yesterday as I read Hansard. … . I can't believe 'we' are so gullible, short sighted and disinterested after being wearied by the endless hammering during election events: that we not only vote for these people, but pay them as well. …I know it’s traumatic and the future looks bleak, but after the anger and depression will come acceptance and renewal.

Hopefully most of your colleagues will have the same epiphany, sooner rather than later. (Looks like Cactus is there….)

If most of GA realised that all governments in the last couple of decades have ‘left it to the experts’, most of GA would realise:
- who’s actually responsible for, among other problems, the Frankenstein that is the RRP, and
- more importantly, how to focus GA’s meagre electoral influence to bring about real change.

The problem is that those ‘experts’ don’t have the expertise to carry out many of the responsibilities abrogated to them.

The TASSR is merely the most recent abrogation of responsibility to another group of ‘experts’ – prompting Monday’s flurry of Laborial self-congratulation and mutual admiration recorded in Hansard.

Perhaps the next step will be a ‘Taskforce’ to ‘implement the recommendations’ of the Review? Perhaps the ‘Taskforce’ will comprise a group of ‘experts’?

Don’t peck at the feed, folks.

Those who were paying attention would have noted the government this week asked the Greens for their ‘wishlist’ in return for votes in favour of lifting the debt ceiling. Imagine if that ‘wishlist’ had included completion of actions to address the recommendations of the inquiry into aviation accident investigation. Alas, too late. This time…

The non-major party aligned Senators are the only glimmer of hope for GA. Focus your energy on lobbying them.

Kharon
4th Dec 2013, 20:22
I'd blame the bloody birds on the paddock – mayhap, 'tis time to round up the strays.

These perhaps.

Paragraph377
4th Dec 2013, 21:19
Kharon, nice footage. Taken from an era probably a decade AFTER the regulatory reform commenced?
Let's take a wander back a tad, to 1981, back before Frankenstein's monster was born in a Government lab:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=quJ018In8Ow
Now that is the kind of strategic move I would expect CASA to pull out of its magicians bag. What we need is a cricket team made up of IOS, real aviation experts and non party aligned Senators to counteract the 'Chappelising' of our industry.

Creampuff, no arguments from me. I agree that the pressure would have to come from non party aligned Senators. Although I still do believe in the integrity of Xenophon without a shadow of a doubt, and I believe that his intent is genuine, it's just that the horsepower doesn't appear to be there.
A smart move would be for the non affiliated Senators to pick up the Australian aviation thread and start a plan of action. They have a couple of years to learn the aviation ropes, pick up some robust advisors from the IOS and sharpen the knives and plant the pineapple seeds. It will take 2 and a bit years to pull a strong package together, but hey, reg reform has been drifting along for 25 years now, so this could be non aligned Senators meal ticket into the big sandpit. And they would garnish a lot of support from a large number of IOS voters.

Paragraph377
4th Dec 2013, 23:04
UITA, well done son. Could this be yet another example, exposed, of the Governments intent to 'feed Creamy's chooks'? I believe so.
And this ties in with Kharons questions, namely why Mr Reiss? Plucked from obscurity by whom? Who and how was the decision made to involve him? The IOS would like to review and examine this process. Perhaps Sky Sentinel plucked his name out of a data base? If the smaller end of town was to be represented transparently then Mr Truss's footstool Kingcrat would have brought in Boyd Munro or someone of that calibre?
Sneaky sneaky.

601
5th Dec 2013, 07:30
You see I'm curious to know why a dwindling, insignificant organisation representing perhaps a few hundred private aircraft owners which essentially sells advertising and publishes a few magazines, is "the" organisation to represent GA, not to mention the potential for 'conflict of interest' creeping into the pot at a later date. Risky strategy - you bet.

Probably because it is the only GA organisation in Oz which has a degree of orginisation about it.

namely why Mr Reiss? Plucked from obscurity by whom?

Strange statement considering Phil has been around for a while.

Frank Arouet
5th Dec 2013, 09:11
Given it had 4,000 members in 2004, as stated under oath at Senate Estimates, and now appears to have about 700, it would seem as organized as one could get for a systemic failure. 3,300 members lost in nine years equates to an average steady loss of some 366 members per annum. Why did these people leave if they were getting a benefit for their subscriptions for representation?


Given about 20,000 pilots in Australia, the numbers don't appear to be any representation of pilots let alone the sum of engineers, Air agriculture, EMS, Recreational pilots, DAME's, AOC holders, Regional aviation, Helicopter operators, balloon operators, Ornithopter enthusiasts etc. etc.


Being head of this organization hardly qualifies for induction to any "expert" panel of advisers irrespective how long he has "been around". They lost all their "exerts" years ago in the ego wars.

601
5th Dec 2013, 10:47
Even thought it is alleged to only have has "700" members, pray tell what other organised organisation of that size is there to represent GA pilots?

Frank Arouet
5th Dec 2013, 21:32
Probably this mob. Australian Women Pilots` Association (http://www.awpa.org.au/) They say as much about their membership numbers on their website as does that "organized organization" you mention.


I draw your attention to post # 113 Annual report to ASIC.


Receipts from membership fees: $97,744.00 Divided by $145 average but not including non natural non voting members, non voting juniors, associate members etc. comes to 674 members. This despite the information given to Auditors there were 2,588 members?


Only members with full voting rights should be claimed. Perhaps they are claiming "lapsed members" which many are unless those members resign in writing. (read the articles of association).


Take note: they do not represent me!


Even if you add the two totals together and divide by two for a wild average there are still 1631 which is still a bit shy to be claiming to represent all of GA.


I estimate the PPRune posters networks who have made submissions to both The Senate and this enquiry have more combined members.


But what would I know?

Sarcs
5th Dec 2013, 21:59
Personally the IOSCB have no problem with Phil carrying the drinks, it is the prerogative of the Captain to pick the twelfth man. However let's 'play the ball' and not the man, after all it is just not cricket to sledge a player off the field of play...:E

601: Even thought it is alleged to only have has "700" members, pray tell what other organised organisation of that size is there to represent GA pilots?
Hmm..interesting comment and at the risk of drifting towards the inevitable NAOPA wars :rolleyes: (there is another thread in GA for that ;)) let us do a basic review/audit, say over the last 5 years, of the legitimacy of 601's comment...:cool:

Note: Before we start I think 601 has sold NAOPA short in the who?? and what?? they profess to represent, from 'An Open Letter to Everyone Involved in General Aviation in Australia' (http://www.aopa.com.au/information-centre/aopa-news/an-open-letter-to-everyone-involved-in-general-aviation-in-australia/): (http://www.aopa.com.au/information-centre/aopa-news/an-open-letter-to-everyone-involved-in-general-aviation-in-australia/)
AOPA does its best to work closely with other aviation organisations, but AOPA is the only one that truly represents the full spectrum of GA activity: IFR, VFR, helicopter and fixed-wing, aerial work and charter, owner-flown, instructional and private hire.
Let us accept, that in GA terms, for the last 12 months the most significant event in GA circles (the one that drew the most cross-discipline, cross-association, political interest, pprune following etc..and largely responsible for triggering the TASRR) was the Senate PelAir inquiry . OK so we will use that event to establish a baseline for our brief review.

So did our truly only GA reps offer support to our Senate elected representatives on the release of the PelAir report and its damning findings back on the 23rd of May...AOPA News link for 2013 (http://www.aopa.com.au/information-centre/aopa-news/).?? Err...no! {NB: I can stand correction here; but in the whole of the news listings that the PelAir inquiry was running there is not one mention that I can find}.

So did our truly only GA reps at least make a submission to the PelAir inquiry...Aviation Accident Investigations (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/submissions)?? That would be a no!:rolleyes:

Maybe they were involved in the other significant GA Senate inquiry...Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2010-12/pilots2010/submissions)?? Also a no!:rolleyes:

In fact the last time that our truly only GA reps made a submission to a GA related Senate/House inquiry was in 2008 and that effort could only best be described as a Creamy wet lettuce response, see here:

Inquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/submissions/sublist)

AOPA sub 6 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/submissions/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/casa/submissions/sub06_pdf.ashx)

AOPA sub 6A (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/submissions/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/casa/submissions/sub06a_pdf.ashx)

Hearing transcript (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/hearings/~/media/wopapub/senate/senate/commttee/S10926_pdf.ashx) from page 30
{To be fair, it is also worth noting that the Captain's pick twelfth man was not selected in that series..}

Sarcs comment: Trolling back through the history of our truly only GA reps involvement in past parliamentary inquiries, there was one submission of note back in 1999-2000 that the association should seriously consider re-badging/updating (name changes etc) and forward as their submission for the TASRR:House Committee sub 145 (http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=primind/rdinq/sub145-e.pdf) Hmm...on second thoughts perhaps not!:E

In the interest of balance of our truly only GA reps (and their 781 members), the elected committee have not been sitting on their hands, from the letter mentioned above :D:
Recently, on your behalf, the AOPA Committee has:
• Prepared detailed responses to CASA and attended meetings to advocate more GA-friendly provisions in the new Part 61, 91, 141, 142, 145, aviation medical, ageing aircraft and other regulations
• Actively engaged with the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group and the Bureau of Meteorology to make sure that GA, and not just the airlines, have a say on vital air traffic management, airspace planning, satellite-based navigation, weather and other services
• Re-introduced the AOPA aviation scholarships with the support of Airservices Australia
• Held seminars around the country, actively promoting general aviation safety and making contact with our members. In summing up (and on behalf of the IOSCB) I can see no problem with the twelfth man selection, however the IOSCB would have serious issue with him taking to the field in any other position except silly mid-on or to carry the drinks! :ok:

Addendum: Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions.aspx)

Media Release WT042/2013 06 December 2013 (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2013/December/wt042_2013.aspx)

Kharon
5th Dec 2013, 23:41
I agree with Sarcs # 119; Reiss is probably a reasonable cove, certainly a good (if not the best) choice of fellah to carry the drinks and lick the invitation envelopes. But the slippery notion that AOPA; (as in the real muscle, heavy metal USA version), is representing the local domestic product at what was to be a serious review is risible.

The AOPAA, that is the Australian, non aligned version has, since 2000 slowly declined to insignificance, achieving very little of any great benefit to the unwashed, unshriven masses. The Sarcs post highlights a singular lack of performance; the diminishing membership reflects an inability to generate interest in any positive way and the lack of any sort of guidance on matters aeronautical is notable. The AAAA, AHIA, RAAA, AMROBA, have done some very heavy lifting in all areas of concern and have lead by example. The 2008 submissions mentioned for example showed a real commitment toward assisting industry in a positive, non-combative approach to dealing with the issues as they arose.

Nope: sorry, but whoever made certain that the Minister pulled the AOPAA name out of his hat is, shall we say, 'misinformed'. If we must have a specialist "GA – expert advisor" to carry the drinks, manage the dinner seating cards and arrange the flowers, there are better representatives from an extensive list organisations. Why not select the CEO, GM or CP of a fair dinkum company, there is a fairly extensive list of first class GA/Regional operations to choose from; RFDS, Police Air-wing, Sharp, Air North, Qlink etc. etc. Much more in touch with coal face issues and far, far removed from the rarefied atmosphere of what is now a small, select, specialised user of non renewable resources.

Creamy has the right of it: a one sentence email supporting any of the major players will do a lot more good than sitting back, depending on the 12th man and associated cronies.

Many people dropped their AOPA membership in years past because of instability and wasteful expenditure. The current AOPA Committee is determined not to let that happen again.

Put simply, I’m writing to ask you to give AOPA another chance.

Just about says it all for my AUD$ 0. 20.

Horatio Leafblower
6th Dec 2013, 01:22
Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development

Media Statement

6 December 2013

Aviation Safety Regulation Review – submissions now open

DEPUTY Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss today announced the opening of the public consultation stage for the Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review, announced by Mr Truss on 14 November 2013, is a systemic and strategic review to examine how well Australia’s regulatory system is positioned to ensure we remain at the forefront of aviation safety globally.

“The general and regional aviation sectors, in particular, have told the Government they are concerned about the costs of regulatory compliance and how our regulatory system compares to other countries,” Mr Truss said.

“This review will place us in a strong position to ensure our aviation safety standards remain up to the challenge of meeting the predicted expansion of aviation over the next 20 years.

“Australia has a world-class aviation safety record but that doesn’t mean we should sit by and just hope it stays that way.

“I encourage everyone in the Australian aviation industry to engage in this review.

“The Coalition Government is determined to do everything it can to make a good safety system even better.”

The Review Panel, chaired by Mr David Forsyth AM, is now calling for public and industry submissions. Submissions close 31 January 2014.

Mr David Forsyth AM, will Chair the review panel. Mr Forsyth is a prominent figure in Australian aviation. He is the chair of Safeskies Australia, former chair of Airservices Australia and has over 30 years of experience in safety management and aviation business.

Mr Forsyth will be joined by Mr Don Spruston, former Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada and former Director General of the International Business Aviation Council, and by Mr Roger Whitefield, former Head of Safety at British Airways, former safety adviser to Qantas and former United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority board member.

The review panel will provide its report to the Deputy Prime Minister in May 2014.

Submissions may be made through the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr).

This news just in, hot off the server.

Interesting that it now sounds like more regulation rather than cleaning out the deadwood :ugh:

Creampuff
6th Dec 2013, 02:28
The Coalition Government is determined to do everything it can to make a good safety system even better.You see: It’s already a ‘good system’!

If you’re considering making a submission suggesting that the current system isn’t that ‘good’, it might be worth first confirming that authors of submissions are protected by parliamentary privilege. :ok:

Paragraph377
6th Dec 2013, 04:02
Creamy, good pick up. Improving our 'already good system' is a nice misrepresentation of the truth, and a cleverly worded little nugget of deceit :=
Naughty naughty spin doctors spinning away on behalf of Truss. One has to recognise, acknowledge and admit that the system is very very sick, terminal, complete shite (as it currently is), before any changes can be made. That recognition is yet to be acknowledge by those who can introduce the fixes. I mean the IOS and a host of aviation core people know it, but don't have the horsepower to change it.
On a seperate note, the ISASI article below is worth a guernsey.

http://www.isasi.org/Documents/ForumMagazines/ISASI_Forum_Oct-Dec_2013.pdf

Chair Tadros keynote address was quite succinct, and it emphasizes how investigations, per se, have and are changing in scope, technique and methodology. I think that Mr Spruston the review panel expert from the land of the Moose will be quite surprised at how our ATSBeaker has slipped backwards faster than a CASA executive slipping between two taxpayer troughs! The Canucks have pretty much got it right in the investigative field, and so have our brothers in Singapore and the USA. I am sort of hoping that one outcome of the review will be the actual implementation in Australia of workable regulations and a return to sane rules and the world class quality type investigations that the ATSBeaker used to do before Bills and Stray went away and Jules Verne and Beaker took the helm. I remain sceptical about the Governments intent, however if enough of the underlying issues make light a small brushfire may erupt, regardless of how much they try to smother it. A small brushfire has the capacity to turn into a fully fledged bushfire which is what we need. Remember, a fire is destructive, however after the fire new foliage sprouts and takes over………

LeadSled
6th Dec 2013, 14:06
]-----it might be worth first confirming that authors of submissions are protected by parliamentary privilege[/I].

Well said, particularly as all submissions, including those marked "confidential" will be available to anyone in Government, but especially CASA, who wants to look at them.

Defo. is alive and well as a source of income for lawyers who specialise in that sort of thing ----- and both CASA and Airservices have threatened or actually taken action for defamation against industry players who have been critical of individuals.

All the above in addition to CASA's propensity to not view criticism kindly.

Tootle pip!!

dubbleyew eight
6th Dec 2013, 14:59
the only way to handle that is to make absolutely no submissions.

Kharon
6th Dec 2013, 18:42
I hardly ever wish-upon-a-star; the occasional muttered comment to whatever pagan gods are handy serves any need for divine intervention; but I'd probably do both to be at the briefing sessions between Team Truss and the Pel Air Senate crew. The outcome of that is going to decide what colour the elephant gets painted. It's a racing certainty that without the drive, dedication and determination of that Senate committee, it's all over, bar the shouting.

The weasel words are flowing, trite little apologies, enough spin to shame a whirling dervish, severely constricted ToR and the joys of defo threatening are all part of the Murky Machiavellian toolkit. Neat little tricks to block parliamentary privilege, tame professional board sitters; the show is starting to look more a vicars tea party than a down and dirty attempt to straighten out the mess.

Aye well, at least when the next preventable smoking hole appears, we can define precisely just who's hands are bloody. We did try to warn them.

Sponsor the IOS review panel for Gathering Analogous Supportable Bulldust Achieving Gullible Sincerity.....

Horatio Leafblower
6th Dec 2013, 22:26
at least when the next preventable smoking hole appears, we can define precisely just who's hands are bloody. We did try to warn them.

No mate they will say "We held inquiries and hearings and inquests and did all we could reasonably do. The company concerned has passed many safety audits in our excellent aviation safety regulatory system. Therefore, it must be pilot error".

Sarcs
6th Dec 2013, 23:02
In keeping with the rules of the upcoming TASRR World Series Cricket competition (Bodyline series MKII), the IOSCB has met in a EBM to discuss the 2 international selections. For the proposed first pick the board has unanimously supported the motion to send an invitational to the EAACB for the services of Alan Farkus (a.k.a F**K You).:D:D

Farkus has been touted as being the next great allrounder of WSC(USA). He currently opens the bowling for the EAA and has a formidable record with consistent bowling speeds at over 150km, he has a huge bumper ball that has got under the chin of many an FAA inspector and as first drop for the EAA, has the incredible batting figures of 99.9.:E

We (the IOSCB) hope the IOS membership fully support our first international selection and nominations for the 2nd selection are now open.:confused:

Some excerpts off the CV of Alan Farkus (a.k.a F**k You)....

Aero-News Update: The Other Shoe Drops -- EAA Files Brief in EAA v FAA Fee War (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=B6EB416B-0DC0-42E1-8E82-7E8F73729980)

Aero-News Podcast MP3 (http://www.aero-news.net/podcasts/casts/7/ann-daily-brief-2013-12-06.mp3)

Petition for Review and Other Relief (http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-07-03_EAA-petitions-federal-court-on-FAA-ATC-charges.pdf) Regardless; make no mistake about it... a decidedly and increasingly unkind and unfriendly FAA has now learned in no uncertain terms that a once compliant General and Sport Aviation community is starting to wake up to the realities of a federal government that is more interested in politics and serving itself than doing the job is has done for decades -- and is still expected to do. {hmm...sounds familiar :ugh:}

If the FAA thought the entire industry was going to roll over and let them run roughshod over our rights and their responsibilities (to us), then it seems that the time has come to disabuse them of that notion:=:=. And we MUST offer serious kudos to EAA for having the Cojones :D to step up and meet the FAA on the legal field of battle... we were worried that they didn't have it in them... and now we know they do.

From here on out, it looks to be a dogfight, folks, and we'll keep you updated.


[YOUTUBE]Airborne 12.06.13: EAA Meets FAA - In Court, Shell's UnLeaded AvGas, Jet WACO! - YouTube

EAA's Legal Position:

The FAA's Decision to Demand Payment from EAA for ATC Services at AirVenture Is Arbitrary, Capricious, an Abuse of Discretion, and Otherwise Not in Accordance with Law.
The FAA Lacks Statutory Authority to Impose Fees on EAA for ATC Services.
The FAA's Charge for ATC Services Is an Unlawful User Fee
The FAA's Imposition of Fees on EAA for ATe Services Violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine
The Purported Agreement Is Invalid Due to Duress
Gotta love the yanks...:ok:

Kharon
7th Dec 2013, 17:51
Great idea HLB (#130) - A bloody good way to save a few trees. Maybe we just write the IOS Act and submit it, save a load of dollars, messing about with reviews and inquiries. Here ya go mate; done and dusted on the back of a beer coaster. Easy peasy.

The IOSCB Aviation Act, (writ small in fine print).

The rule of law is officially made redundant by this Act. Herewith and henceforward all accidents or incidents, no matter how repetitive, no matter how serious, irrespective of who gets killed or nearly drown are not our fault. Henceforward -nothing is 'our' fault.

We the untouchables led by the unsavoury hereby avow and declare Criminal Pilot Error (non prosecutable because of the silly rules of evidence) to be the predetermined outcome of any future accident or incident.

We the invincible in cooperation with the unconscionable solemnly declare our intention to only present our own home spun version of events; disregard peer group safety recommendations (what would they know) and will outlaw the attendance of our people in nasty Coroners courtrooms.

We will promise to continue our world leading efforts to ensure that whether those who toil in our sheltered workshops bring their children to work or not; we will provide a no worries workplace.

Looks like Sarcs has discovered one the differences between the US outlook and Australian don't look. Can we persuade Mr Farkuse or better still Sean Elliot (VP EAA) to travel over here and bat for the IOS first XI? that should go down very nicely with the tea and scones set. Must be very nice to have the dollars, the laws, the membership, the interest and the political courage to tangle with the monolith of US government.

I wish him, his cojones and all EAA members, the very best of all things. Bravo!!

Kharon
8th Dec 2013, 19:23
LS # 127 - "and both CASA and Airservices have threatened or actually taken action for defamation against industry players who have been critical of individuals."

I heard a very ugly rumour yesterday; which if ever proven true demands immediate, urgent public action. This came not from the TL fuel depot; but from a fairly well informed source. I hope there is no truth in the tale, but FWIW - the conversation, paraphrased : "Seems Arthur Pape has been copping all kinds of flack - attacked, disadvantaged and threatened for publishing - his article (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html#post8156628) - on Pprune and for refusing to bow down and back off. Tactics of a Non model litigant are being ruthlessly applied".

I can't give it to you chapter and verse; wish I could, so for once, try to read between the lines I can give you. This sort of thing needs a positive response from government even if it's just a simple denial, because if true and ever proven, it's time to turn off the lights.

LeadSled
9th Dec 2013, 13:55
Sarcs comment: Trolling back through the history of our truly only GA reps involvement in past parliamentary inquiries, there was one submission of note back in 1999-2000 that the association should seriously consider re-badging/updating (name changes etc) and forward as their submission for the TASRR:House Committee sub 145 (http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=primind/rdinq/sub145-e.pdf) Hmm...on second thoughts perhaps not!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Folks,
In those days, AOPA was a very different and much larger organization, with a very different approach to the present and much smaller AOPA. As somebody basks on one post, can and organisation that takes money from CASA be independent -- or more importantly: "Bite the hand that feeds it".

Of course not!!!

In comparison, in the 90s and early 2000s, a prime AOPA policy was "Pay your own way, have your own say", and, actually, quite a lot was achieved, including forcing Parts 21 to 35 into law.

Tootle pip!!

Kharon
9th Dec 2013, 18:57
Well !: maybe the Pape episode is a good starting point for the Forsyth saga. I hear Doc Pape had a sit down with the inimitable Fawcett yesterday, the tea lady told the delivery man she overheard that apparently Doc Pape can no longer possibly be considered a suitable 'expert witness' since he became a tendentious blogger and joined the IOS. Well that's at least one side of the story, told in whispers and innuendo, but as much as I can get for moment; there may yet be a rebuttal. Or even solid fact, which would be nice.

But if true, then it makes as sad a statement about the use of regulation. Almost any, no matter how thin, stretch of 'legal' embuggerance which can be used to delay, divert and drag out an AAT case seems to be an acceptable norm. Of course it's all bollocks; both sides know that, but what sort of 'model' litigant would stoop to such low, budget stretching tactics in an attempt to win a case. We know children, don't we.

Perhaps the Vicars crew could start with the Pape issue, just to gain some insight. Although it does seem the Murky Machiavellian script shuns any sort of unpleasant head on confrontation with the bullies or providing solace to the victims. There is a public statement on this made – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-83.html#post8195679) – seems everyone is invited for tea and scones provided you wear your Sunday best, shoes polished, noses wiped, hands clean and you play nice; otherwise back to the workhouse for you. Always though it was cruel to invite the local urchins up to the 'big house' for tea, scones and pony rides, then dump them back at the orphanage, bewildered and confused; but I digress. Three monkeys story anyone:-you know; hear, speak and see no evil. etc..

He said the panel was open to anything industry players wanted to tell it; however, Mr Truss had been clear in the terms of reference that he wanted a strategic review that did not re-examine investigations or look at individual complaints.
He said he understood some smaller operators were particularly cranky about the way CASA operated, but that the panel was not a witch-hunt and he would be seeking CASA's viewpoint.

"As with all of these things there's never any one fault," he said. "When you've got a relationship breakdown it takes at least two and sometimes three, so it will be interesting to hear both sides of it."

Admitting that managing the review would need "a fair bit of diplomacy", he said people would need to recognise that the panel was attempting to try and improve the situation. Being vitriolic about CASA or other players was not going to be seen as being particularly helpful.

"The panel obviously wants to get to the meat of these things and deal with it and maybe look at some options for improvement," he said "It isn't here to sit down to hear people rant and rave so people need to be measured in the way they put their responses together."

Aye well, bollocks aside: I notice the whoever put the CASA calendar together this year has managed to include the month of March; stellar achievement. It is to be fervently hoped that those responsible for previous omissions to the Julian calendar have since been educated to deal with this new legislation (circa 45 BC) and are not removed to any sort of responsible position after having learnt a 'new skill set'.

Addendum : Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1857) - Paul Phelan reports from the tea rooms.

thepinkbarron
10th Dec 2013, 08:16
The locals will be out in force no doubt trying to get the recreational facilities moved or shut down. It's shame Moorabbin has such a mixed record. And there is going to be an onslaught of the below the belt digs (humorous or not): Andrew Jenkins - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCISDmt9YekhI8ANecsl7Hrg/videos) :D

Paragraph377
10th Dec 2013, 11:38
As always, Phelan pens a succinct article, and kudos to the Ferryman for posting the link. It's the kind of article that should be read rather than consigned to the Shelfware files. I just hope that Sky Sentinel isn't being used as part of the security system that ties into the review panels office, and especially that safe?
Surely such a secure system would not be vulnerable to some crafty ASIO style bugging and surveillance program? I might phone the Australian Embassy in Jakarta and ask them :ok: Hang on a minute, CASA/ASIO? Doesn't CASA HR have an ex ASIO dude working for them in IR :=

But some interesting observations must be made. If CASA are truly the model litigant and the upholders of integrity that they claim to be, why are they so mistrusted by industry and the IOS? And why the continual claims of bullying from both industry and internal staff if there isn't a bullying culture or issue? Senator Xenophon has certainly picked up on that issue, and I do recall him asking The Skull about his alleged temper issues. (I know, a low blow by Xenophon. And just because there was a Star Chamber at CX years ago that doesn't mean The Skull has done anything wrong).
Anyway, I wouldn't have thought that any government department would allow, tolerate or even deliberately foster a bullying regime? But hey, it's probably just the rumour mill doing its thing? It's all false, just a load of tautological accusations by the IOS yet again.

Now the other thing that keeps niggling at me is the exit of Mr Hart from the ICC. Now I know we are looking at a couple of years ago now since he resigned, but why does a man of integrity, sound judgement and fairness just pull the pin overnight? It would be great if Nick and friends could question him under parliamentary privilege? Hart was a good man, his reputation preceded him and his departure is still being rued by industry 5 years later. Why is that?

Kharon
10th Dec 2013, 19:19
Although senators had sought parliamentary privilege for people and organisations who lodge submissions, it has been explained that under the parliamentary rules, privilege can only be conferred on proceedings that are in fact part of the Parliamentary process, whereas the ASRR’s review is at the behest of the Minister, not the Parliament but is not an instrument of the parliament.

This is a bit too much like the now infamous interpretation of "air transport" used to squeeze airport leases to a satisfactory conclusion for my taste. Give the review to the Senate under Pel Air recommendation 13, perhaps after we get the minuscule 's long awaited response (at some point in the distant future).

"The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes...."

That way people who feel they need confidentiality will get it by being able to give evidence 'in camera'...just a thought?? Hate to think we would have to revisit R13 at a later date just to salvage the integrity of the Minister...now that would be a waste.

[We] even have a safe in the office I’m sitting in at the moment, which is a substantial measure itself, because it used to be the Head of Government Security’s safe. We put anything in there that we’ve been given; we require an extra degree of security around it; and we already have one document in there.

“Everything potentially sensitive will be kept in the safe; it can only be accessed by one person and that person is not me; it’s one person who is general manager here. So even if I want to look at something there it’s got to go back to him. Anything we put in a safe we are not copying, there is an original in the safe, and that’s it. So if someone makes a confidential submission and wants it totally protected we can do that; no one can refer to it, and it goes back in the safe when the panel’s finished with it. What it boils down to I think, is if people don’t tell us what they want to tell us, we can’t do anything about it.

Pause: just for a second, and consider the practicalities of this fatuous statement. They are expecting 300 submissions, they have one 'key holder' and no mention of a document 'log in - log out' system. Anyone with practical experience of committee work knows that to manage 300 documents over a period of what, six months, what happens; and it's just not going to work.

I think if somebody tried to extract vengeance because of a submission to our review, it would be pretty obvious that that’s what’s happened, and I just don’t think CASA would be that unwise.

I think the Vicar has only ever seen CASA at work through the haze generated over the trough at the happy, clappy, feel good, all mates together "Safe Skies" circus. So when this establishment figure turns up to have a 'chat' you can reasonably expect to be politely listened to – but will you be heard?

The Panel acknowledges that all the submissions including confidential submissions may be made available to ‘interested government departments and government instrumentalities under certain circumstances

Add to this a seriously 'secret squirrel' review, this panel could spend the next six months ducking in and out of the local cat houses, boozing in bordellos, riding skateboards around the park, sparing some little time between morning tea and lunch to "chat" with industry; then hire some catamite to script a smooth 60 pages on glossy paper. Transparent – I think not.

Nope, the high priest of the establishment is going to have to do a lot better than the closing speech of the last 'safe skies' stitch up to convince the IOS, anyone hear it? 10 minutes of thank you and platitude, not a positive statement in sight except a determination to do it all again. Is the mystery wielder of the wet lettuce leaf finally unmasked?

Speaking of wet lettuce - I note Phelan who is usually big on word counts devotes 810 words to the Forsyth saga and a paltry 172 to the potential of it all becoming just another round of old bollocks.

Now the other thing that keeps niggling at me is the exit of Mr Hart from the ICC. Now I know we are looking at a couple of years ago now since he resigned, but why does a man of integrity, sound judgement and fairness just pull the pin overnight? It would be great if Nick and friends could question him under parliamentary privilege?

I for one would dearly love to hear what the inestimable Hart has to say in interview, maybe when the Senate crew get hold of this imbroglio - some time next year (perhaps).

Added - While I'm 'at it' comrade Sarcs seems to have hit the wrong thread (maybe) anyway, it's worth a read – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-83.html#post8197913) – on Pprune. It looks as though W. Entsch (Wazza) has added some fuel to the fire – sorry no link – Try Torres Post.

Boogar !!- I omitted the robust Freudian slip. (Big smile).

[We] even have a safe in the office I’m sitting in at the moment, There you see, all tucked up 'sitting' in the safe; dreadful Grand ma, just awful.

Paragraph377
10th Dec 2013, 21:23
I can picture it now, Creamys wet lettuce being fed by Farmer Truss to the chooks, the chooks in turn dropping loads of rooster booster on the ground and covering industry in it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQWhC4XQ_w

Kharon
11th Dec 2013, 04:43
The other problem of course is the foxes; man do they like to get into a chook shed. Neither locks, threats or the polite throwing of cucumber sandwiches work half as well a bloody big guard dog. Handing over....Where's Steven Palethorpe when we need him. Woof woof.

Sarcs
11th Dec 2013, 04:59
IR- 'Internal Rift': "K" thanks for reminding me..:rolleyes: It looks as though W. Entsch (Wazza) has added some fuel to the fire – sorry no link – Try Torres Post.
Although Creamy damns Wazza's rhetoric as all PIW(piss in wind), could there be another potential IR within the ranks of the Coalition government?? FNQ aviation industry urged to speak up (http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/387/FNQ-aviation-industry-urged-to-speak-up.aspx) :“I would absolutely encourage anyone who has had an issue with CASA procedures - and in particular their officers - to put in a submission,” Mr Entsch said.

“In addition, if they have experienced repeated and unresolved problems with individuals within CASA, they can give evidence in Canberra and name them. Testimony will be subject to parliamentary privilege and cannot be intimidated by legal threats.” And..Not the Torres News...?? (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-3.html#post8170752): "I’ve had a lot of people contact me who have been afraid of victimisation if they speak up; this inquiry gives them an opportunity to provide evidence in camera. This will offer them anonymity and protect them from intimidating threats of defamation.

"People can be honest and frank."
Hmm..be interesting to be a FOTW (fly on the wall..:E) of Coalition HQ over the next couple of days..:cool:

PR- personal rage: In the PP article do I detect a note of, barely controlled, PR by the PC (Professional Chair) in having to lower himself to address the concerns of that riff raff mob the IOS (GA) and all its AASG (associated alphabet soup groups)??:ugh:: Safe to report to us (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1857#comment-1106) :yuk::yuk:

COI - Conflict of interest: {Note: Apologies "K" for posting on the other thread} In post # 1658 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-83.html#post8197913) I reference the SS13 (safeskies13 speakers) and their mugshots. There was one particular mugshot where the gentleman in question (minus the fedora) could have stepped out of a scene from the Untouchables..:E

[YOUTUBE]The Untouchables (6/10) Movie CLIP - You Got Nothing! (1987) HD - YouTube


Comparison aside..;)..this particular gentleman's cv should be of extreme interest to all IOS members, quote:

...."is no stranger to the portfolio having begun his Australian Public Service career in 1988 as a Graduate with the then Department of Transport and Communications. He has held a number of senior positions across the portfolio. His work with the portfolio includes management of international and domestic aviation policy and regulation, the airport sales and regulation program, infrastructure investment, the COAG competition policy reform agenda, rail investment and regulatory reform, maritime policy, emissions, energy and natural resources policy...."

This gentleman practically started crawling in the hallowed halls of the Department (DoT...DoIT etc..etc), he knows better than anyone where all the skeletons are buried and bore witness to twenty plus years of the RRP "drifting along". He also did a stint in Sunny's beloved PMC...:eek:

...."Between March 2008 and June 2009...was Deputy Secretary (Governance) with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with responsibility for government, governance, cabinet secretariat and corporate functions within PM&C...."

He even had a hand in the School Halls & pink batts saga...:(:{

....."In 2009 he was the inaugural Commonwealth Coordinator General charged with ensuring the effective implementation of key Commonwealth economic stimulus infrastructure investments...."

Memo to the Minister: There is no doubting that this gentleman has been a good and faithful servant of the people for a quarter of a century..but Minister for the sake of transparency and integrity please consider handing the admin of the TASRR over to the Senate RRAT committee and letting concerned individuals, operators etc have the protection of parliamentary privilege!:D

SOPs - Separation of powers: The BRB believe that this issue is something the panel should seriously consider while reviewing the functions of FF...??

CRM - Controlled Rage Mandate: Something all IOS members have sworn to uphold i.e all sledging to be kept on the field of play or behind closed doors in the CSS (Chook Shed stadium)....:ok:

Kharon
11th Dec 2013, 17:17
The educational video (below) provides instruction on how, in days gone by, a man who had been ripped off could gain some form of restitution and a degree of satisfaction. The educated viewer may gleam from the subtle messaging and sub text the risks associated with doing dodgy business. These days we have the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC); same principal, only the satisfaction of physical contact is denied.

Problem is the system only targets corruption 'done', not the means by which the corruption is flavoured. There remains the contentious issue of whether the corruption is of a moral or legal flavour. It is a sickness of the time we live in – legal and tidy ?= all good. The moral or ethical questions in any situation may be, with impunity, dusted off.

There is no ICAB (Bull-dust). There is a 'legal' impediment to offering 'real' protection from persecution, so there; that's it. Yet we are expected to 'play up' and make genuine, but toothless complaint against the PPP of CASA and meekly accept that we may rely on some second hand fridge, converted (with a new padlock) to a safe, for industrial security. No moral obligations whatsoever to protect witness is envisaged. Bollocks, give this revue back to the Senate, where it belongs; with folk who understand parts, if not all of it. Then drag S. Palethorpe esq. and his crew back from wherever they are toiling and lets have this thing done "proper", or let's not bother at all.

There is no ICAP (Patronising). "GA people"; "Industry players" and all the poor people out there, not sitting on a cushion. You note the high handed, demeaning words used. Not a whisper of robust comment, perhaps along the lines of "We understand and support the need for your protection; there are some legal impediments to this at moment, however we shall discuss the matter with the Miniscule and his watchdog, to ensure that full protection is available to those who's business and career depend on not becoming a haunted or hunted species". Stone the crows, (insert retch break here).

“It may not make your readers totally happy, because some would have been seeking parliamentary privilege. But what we’ve done – and we’ll be telling GA people this when we talk to them as well
Damn straight it don't.

There is no ICAP (Platitudes). A pat on the head and a soothing, but meaningless reassurance from a professional Master of Ceremonies (or a Head waiter for that matter) mean Jack; they're both very superior, cynical and professionally superficial beings.

“So there’s a wall around the review, around its files, around its information and around its people. Each person in the office has signed a confidentiality agreement and gone through all of the processes that generally apply to these sorts of reviews.

There is no ICARR. (Rigged races) the Murky Machiavellian team will no doubt impress the mug punters. Much in the same way a showy, jail bait chestnut filly prancing around the saddling paddock will always attract the 'ladies' money (mine sometimes and I should know better), even at short odds. But, under the sleek glossy hide although all looks well, the fix is in. It will be a legal fix no doubt, the mare returning to stables for a good rub down, in a warm stall the feed bag full of favourite sweetmeats. The rest will just be 'rid hard and put away wet', after all they're just spares to make it look like a real race, the knackers yard awaits.

There is no ICAC. (Confusion). The internal Rift (IR) wars at political level need to be settled. Wazza says it's OK – go for it, I've got your 6. The PC/PC says no pushing, or hair pulling for there is to be no protection against that sort of behaviour (Mummy smack). Which, FPS is it?

Aye well, the Sarcs defined Politically Correct (PC) Professional Chairman (PC) only needs to polish off the welcome speech, work a little more on the closing speech and it's all done and dusted: neat and legal; tied up with a pretty PC ribbon. Special advisors can swagger off to a special congratulatory dinner; and the long serving calendar girl may even be able to return to the stable that bred it.

EdVid 101.

Step up boys and girls; otherwise, no one will be able to say "Oi !, you sold us queer giraffes". Or hear you scream in space.

Selah.

thunderbird five
11th Dec 2013, 19:36
On 14 November 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon Warren Truss MP, announced the Government has established an independent review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

The submission process is now open.


Submissions will be accepted until 31 January 2014.


Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx)



Sure don't give industry a whole lot of time to get submissioning does it....


I urge every pilot and every organisation to have their say on how we compare with other countries. But not here on Pprune! GO TO THE SUBMISSION FORM and have your say COUNT.

hiwaytohell
11th Dec 2013, 21:16
Interesting that the terms of reference does not include:

"Outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and operators/industry!

Nor the need to protect the confidentiality of submissions and contributors. We can provide detailed submissions, but without strong protections in place there is a lot of opportunity for payback from some very nasty CASA FOIs and AWIs down the track.

thorn bird
11th Dec 2013, 23:36
Sad, but I have a horrible feeling that this enquiry has been nobbled from the start. The CAsA thugs have Trussed Truss up very well, much the same as organised criminals manipulate the legal system.
It would appear the committee members have not the slightest inkling of the corruption they are dealing with and it would take a very brave individual to attempt to educate them, given the extent CAsA would go to, and has gone to, to ensure any dissent is well and truely muzzled.
Creamie is probably right again it's another snow job.

Sarcs
12th Dec 2013, 00:44
TB: Sad, but I have a horrible feeling that this enquiry has been nobbled from the start. The CAsA thugs have Trussed Truss up very well, much the same as organised criminals manipulate the legal system.
TB (tongue in cheek..:ok:) do you reckon?? Although I'm not so sure about??:confused:..."It would appear the committee members have not the slightest inkling of the corruption they are dealing with..."

IMO the players (Senators NX, DF..Wazza and co) don't know how to get around dealing with a Minister who is already trussed up and spinning around Kingcrat and FF's spit with a bloody great pineapple protruding from his err:rolleyes:..mouth...:E

Anyway while we're waiting for Mr PC (under Dept direction) to officially draw up the rules of engagement...:zzz: ...came across an article written on the back of Holden's demise that prompts food for thought..???:rolleyes:
Why Holden is an aerospace opportunity. (http://www.carry-on.com.au/blog/holden-aerospace-opportunity/)

Politicians are scrounging for reasons to blame or deny the imminent demise of Australia’s automotive manufacturing industry. Automotive’s future script has been clear for over two decades since Dr John Hewson announced a zero tariff regime for automotive products in 1992.

Indeed, the writing has been on the wall for the majority of Australia’s manufacturing industries for sometime, yet one industry is a clear performer. Australia’s $4 billion aerospace manufacturing industry is a minnow when compared to the automotive industry, but it still employs more than 14,000 people. Subject to aviation’s global fiscal uncertainty, it still continues to grow delivering consistent profit and growth as other industries shrink.

Before the election the Coalition presented a relatively well thought through aviation policy document (http://australianaviation.com.au/2013/08/coalition-aviation-policy-promises-safety-reform-and-support-for-industry/), a step in the right direction after years of neglect. Specifically, section 11 of the Coalition’s aviation policy ‘Enhance Industry and Training’ identified the need to study “the state of the workforce in the broader aviation industry to inform future skills development and training policies.”

This opportunity presents a test of commitment. With thousands of skilled automotive workers searching for work, up-skilling them for aerospace manufacturing would be far cheaper than training a worker from scratch.
The technological efficiency demands of commercial and military operators require it to constantly adapt and recreate. This doesn’t happen overnight, aerospace plans decades ahead and the support of significant capital investment provides a certain guarantee of longevity. Substantially larger capital investment also means aviation has a better capability to absorb the cost of an expensive workforce, an Australian reality.

Australia already holds commitment for multiple, secure aerospace programmes over the next 20 years, including: Boeing’s Aerostructures Australia’s (BAA) $4 billion 787 component supply programme, and position as continued sole supplier of 737 ailerons; GippsAERO new Indian-owner Mahindra has committed to development of the GA-10 and GA-18 programmes, with the appointment of 14 new dealers to support expansion into markets in the Americas, Europe and South East Asia; and, F-35 component supply.

Further, production locations for Boeing’s next generation 777X programmes remain undetermined – wherever it lands will deliver billions in economic activity – presenting an opportunity for BAA to be a significant programme supplier. The F-35 support programmes will continue for the foreseeable future. And, if Tony Abbott signs a new Australia-China free-trade agreement (FTA) it presents considerable opportunity for an aerospace partnership with China’s largest manufacturer COMAC.

Is there an opportunity for Australia to be a significant component supplier for the 777X programme? Image: Boeing.

A genuine commitment made today to aerospace industry development and training support could see the number of manufacturers and component suppliers grown well above the 834 that exist today. As manufacturers and suppliers increase, planned training programmes could see automotive workers transition over the next three to four years as automotive shuts down.

Ultimately this growth, supports technological leadership and increased economies of scale, reducing the disadvantage of our distance and cost of doing business. With the right policy, planning and support, Australia’s new government could deliver a mini industrial revolution of sorts – this time in aerospace.

The government needs to look forward, continued bickering only promotes the supposition that Australia is devoid of opportunity. Could aerospace be the opportunity?

Our capabilities have been demonstrated, yet seemingly neither side of the political spectrum wants to recognise it.
Hmm..:confused:..for that kind of government initiative to be truly successful wouldn't someone need to grab the wood shed axe and chop the heads off a couple of raging, rampaging, reckless, red tape roosters??:E

NB Don't forget...:=

AMROBA – AGENDA
MOORABBIN AVIATION INDUSTRY MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2013
Location: Moorabbin Airport 1000 – 1500
Invited: Maintenance Organisations, Operators and Licence Holders
Host: Aviation Maintenance Repair & Overhaul Business Association, inc.
Purpose: Discuss Issues, Government Aviation Policy & Future Effect on Aviation
Contact: Linton Hayres. Aircraft Propellers & Spares. [email protected] (propbits%40propbits.com.au)
Mobile 0408 565 134
Location: Dingley International Hotel (Next to Airport)
334-348 Boundary Road, Dingley 3172. (03) 9551 8344

1000 - 1020 Introduction Ken Cannane, Executive Director, AMROBA
Change – need for new direction
Review – will it achieve change?
1030 – 1040 Government Policy – Direction Senator David Fawcett
LNP Aviation Policy
1040 – 1300 Open Forum - Issues
Chairs: Senator Fawcett, Ken Cannane
Local issues with:
 Airports/Operations/Maintenance/Personnel
 CASA interaction/processes & procedures.
 EASA and/or FAR system for Non-Airline sectors
 Pilot & Engineer qualifications and licensing
 Industry Concerns for future
 Regulatory Rewrite – Stop??
1230 – 1300 Working Lunch (Sandwiches etc Provided)
1300 – 1455 The Way Ahead
Chairs: Ken Cannane, Linton Hayres
Industry Expectations – Your Opinions
 FAR system for non-airline
o Pros & cons
 Independent LAME
 FAA Fixed Based Operators System
 Approved Maintenance Organisations
 AME Licensing
 Pilot/Instructor Licensing
o Independent Flight Instructors
1455 – 1500 Close Summation and thanks

TWOTBAGS
12th Dec 2013, 01:34
Yes it is a snow job.
We had a discussion today whether our organisation would make a submission based upon our current view of the in industry. Some of our management team have be in commercial aviation in and out of Australia for over 40 years. The result was we won't, here is why.

In summary, none of us have seen such a distrust of the regulator by the industry...... ever.

The overriding view is that without completely closed sessions between the respondents and the panel, industry will not speak up as to the atrocious performance of the regulator for fear for reprisal by the regulator and its staff.

The reform process has dragged on for so long and overcomplicated so many functions that the actual level of safety has decreased. I have witnessed operations where flight operations staff and compliance managers have spent so much time on a wild goose chase propagated by CASA not knowing how to apply their own regulations.

For a any organisation to put their skin in the game and say it how it is to the panel, that organisation is seriously compromising their own business continuity.

I am all for affordable safety, but compliance with all the wonderful rolled gold policy and procedures, safety systems and mechanisms is simply unsustainable from an economic stand point given the miniscule population base we have to sustain the cost of the operations.

There are no more glaring examples of this than the recent Part 61 kerfuffle which was doomed from the word go and ADS-B compliance, where by the regulator need to make a blanket exemption because the manufacturers of said equipment simply do not have the resources, to equip a very large percentage of the Australian fleet of jets manufactured pre 2007.

The Australianisation of what could be a simple after market fix for many Part 25 certified airframes is nothing more than a WOFTAM, that is costing the very industry that the regulator is meant to support, a fortune for zero increased safety benefit.

Licencing is another issue, in the US I can complete a type rating on a transport category aircraft in the sim. The check airman can issue me a temporary airman certificate I can walk out of the sim centre across the road to the FBO, and jump straight into that aircraft and fly it away on its delivery flight. In Australia, send the paperwork to CLARC and wait 56 days is their current answer....... for what.

The cost to business for that is not sustainable, zero safety benefit.

Unfortunately, in our view the review will end up not fixing anything.

The only real solution is put a broom through the whole place from the board down. Scrap the 25 years of the regulatory reform process and pass a bill in the senate thats says from this date the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations will mirror those of the FAA.

Do they have a higher accident/ incident rate per hour flown? per passenger carried? I would argue not, is it risk based affordable safety..... the answer is yes.

gchriste
12th Dec 2013, 02:43
The only real solution is put a broom through the whole place from the board down.

Catch 22, this will never happen if no one speaks up. No one seems brave enough to speak up, so nothing happens.

Creampuff
12th Dec 2013, 07:08
TWOBAGS

Yes, unfortunately it’s a snow job.

But the implications of the page you’ve posted on PPRuNe are profound and your organisation can make a submission …. to Senator Xenophon.

And, on 1 July 2014, there’s nothing stopping your organisation from urging the non-major party aligned Senators to follow Senator Xenophon’s lead on matters aviation.

(Bear in mind: The Panel won’t be reporting until “May 2014” – that will almost certainly be ‘re-established’ to beyond May, due to the ‘volume and complexity of the issues raised by the submissions’ received in the context of the terms of reference and the ‘overriding importance of safety and the obvious need to "get the recommendations right"’– so the government will be stalling on doing anything – sorry – ‘waiting with anticipation’ - until the recommendations of the ‘Review’ have been made.

The government’s response to the recommendations of the ‘Review’ will be to announce some ‘fundamental’ changes to a ‘good’ system to make it ‘even better’. Those changes will, in substance, be inconsequential, but at least one will involve legislation. That’s where the non-major party aligned Senators come in.

What the government mooveth, the non-government Senators can amendeth….

(And for Sunfish: The Holden announcement shows just how sensitive the government is to the job-loss shibboleth. i.e. not at all.)

Kharon
12th Dec 2013, 18:57
Creampuff # 148 But the implications of the page you’ve posted on PPRuNe are profound and your organisation can make a submission …. to Senator Xenophon.
Compared to the last hilarious weekend outing at Mr McKenzie's private lake (LBG) with a BBQ, elephant rides and a couple of effigy burnings (we did, most assiduously clean up afterwards) the formal annual meeting was a serious, even sombre affair. We even went 'hi-tech' and abandoned the usual carrier pigeons in favour of Skype for communications with our colleagues far from home.

Overshadowing proceedings, the Truss stitch up and what to do, for best. Not to much wind was wasted deciding that this wet lettuce leaf inquiry has been subject to a right royal embuggerance. Pretty much a given. Not to waste your time; the following ideas found the most merit:-

1) The notion of bombarding Sen NX with (probably) 2 or 300 hundred submissions was impractical; however the idea of sending a short succinct email voicing your objections and supporting a request for Senate committee involvement would be worth the time. cc Barnaby Joyce....(evil icon).

2) That those who wish to should send a submission to the review should do so. Keep it 'simple' and mention regulatory reform, without reform of the regulator is a waste and just another, pointless PC/PR exercise. It should be a fairly easy exercise to add a politely phrased objection to the terms of reference, lack of public reporting, the demeaning, intimidating pre bout rhetoric, the lack of any real protection and the perception that this review is an exhibition bout, rather than a title fight. (see your local wordsmith) and cc Barnaby Joyce.

3) – Three; aye well, three was 'off the wall'. But, a majority vote declared it a bloody good idea, to wit: a petition to Clive Palmer asking he present a private members bill supporting a notion to "Stop buggering about, bring in the NZ CAR, import some NZ talent to steer the process, and clean out the vermin". cc Barnaby Joyce.

There is some serious talent in the BRB, they reckon that it would take a five man team about a month to 're jig' some of the local peculiarities in the NZ CAR and make a working rule set. The Australian AIP being a whole different world of pain, but doable. One of the crew has compliance templates for parts 121, 125 and 135 to provide a guide for CP 's who would need to redraft (down size) their COM, and I am assured that similar templates are available for the engineering sector (foreign language to me). The proposal was marked for further serious consideration, it's wild, but I confess the more I think about it, the better I like it. P7 (TOM) and I walked home in a very thoughtful mood.

Anyway, there you have it, for what it's worth, a paraphrased, potted version of the Bar Room Barristers AGM. The Christmas bash is always a happier, if not healthier affair. (big grin).

Frank Arouet
12th Dec 2013, 22:24
QUOTE: Lo the regulator. He riseth in the morning and upsetteth the whole applecart. Mighty are his endeavors. He goeth forth with great evil and no love in his heart and when the day is spent he returneth, smelling of strong drink and happy, and the truth is not in him.QUOTE
Anonymous.


Our new Attorney General is on to this mob. I doubt the obsfucation in the trussed up affair on note will pass muster when he gets through with his little inquisition. Someone should ask George Brandis what he's up to. Funny how these things dovetail into each other. (happy Frank smilie).

denabol
12th Dec 2013, 23:33
Ben has put up a post on the Senate matters and Truss today.

ATSB chopper emergency inquiry contradicts Pel-Air report | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/12/13/atsb-chopper-emergency-inquiry-contradicts-pel-air-report/)

Sunfish
13th Dec 2013, 01:06
The coming recession is going to put so much strain on the economy that CASA will have to go under, or their won't be a GA sector at all.

My own (uninformed) take on the CASA rules and regulations is that they are unworkable and the product of a dysfunctional organisation.

THe rules and regulations are not clear and readily understandable and seem to be designed to allow the regulator totally unfettered action to the point of an Alice in Wonderland standard.

The ATSB has been totally compromised

Air Services Australia is a failed ATC organisation thanks to a "profit centre" mentality that destroyed the controller base.

The AAT process used by CASA is abused.

So herewith my submission:

'Here!' cried Alice, quite forgetting in the flurry of the moment how large she had grown in the last few minutes, and she jumped up in such a hurry that she tipped over the jury-box with the edge of her skirt, upsetting all the jurymen on to the heads of the crowd below, and there they lay sprawling about, reminding her very much of a globe of goldfish she had accidentally upset the week before.

'Oh, I BEG your pardon!' she exclaimed in a tone of great dismay, and began picking them up again as quickly as she could, for the accident of the goldfish kept running in her head, and she had a vague sort of idea that they must be collected at once and put back into the jury-box, or they would die.

'The trial cannot proceed,' said the King in a very grave voice, 'until all the jurymen are back in their proper places—ALL,' he repeated with great emphasis, looking hard at Alice as he said do.

Alice looked at the jury-box, and saw that, in her haste, she had put the Lizard in head downwards, and the poor little thing was waving its tail about in a melancholy way, being quite unable to move. She soon got it out again, and put it right; 'not that it signifies much,' she said to herself; 'I should think it would be QUITE as much use in the trial one way up as the other.'

As soon as the jury had a little recovered from the shock of being upset, and their slates and pencils had been found and handed back to them, they set to work very diligently to write out a history of the accident, all except the Lizard, who seemed too much overcome to do anything but sit with its mouth open, gazing up into the roof of the court.

'What do you know about this business?' the King said to Alice.

'Nothing,' said Alice.

'Nothing WHATEVER?' persisted the King.

'Nothing whatever,' said Alice.

'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'UNimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.

'UNimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone,

'important—unimportant—unimportant—important—' as if he were trying which word sounded best.

Some of the jury wrote it down 'important,' and some 'unimportant.' Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; 'but it doesn't matter a bit,' she thought to herself.

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out 'Silence!' and read out from his book, 'Rule Forty-two. ALL PERSONS MORE THAN A MILE HIGH TO LEAVE THE COURT.'

Everybody looked at Alice.

'I'M not a mile high,' said Alice.

'You are,' said the King.

'Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen.

'Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice: 'besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.'

'It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King.

'Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice.

The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice.

'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'

'What's in it?' said the Queen.

'I haven't opened it yet,' said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.'

'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'

'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.

'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the OUTSIDE.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'

'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of the jurymen.

'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)

'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'

'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'

There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

'That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.

'It proves nothing of the sort!' said Alice. 'Why, you don't even know what they're about!'

'Read them,' said the King.

The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. 'Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked.

'Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'

These were the verses the White Rabbit read:—

'They told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim.

He sent them word I had not gone
(We know it to be true):
If she should push the matter on,
What would become of you?

I gave her one, they gave him two,
You gave us three or more;
They all returned from him to you,
Though they were mine before.

If I or she should chance to be
Involved in this affair,
He trusts to you to set them free,
Exactly as we were.

My notion was that you had been
(Before she had this fit)
An obstacle that came between
Him, and ourselves, and it.

Don't let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.'

'That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet,' said the King, rubbing his hands; 'so now let the jury—'

'If any one of them can explain it,' said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn't a bit afraid of interrupting him,) 'I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it.'

The jury all wrote down on their slates, 'SHE doesn't believe there's an atom of meaning in it,' but none of them attempted to explain the paper.

'If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, 'that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any. And yet I don't know,' he went on, spreading out the verses on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; 'I seem to see some meaning in them, after all. "—SAID I COULD NOT SWIM—" you can't swim, can you?' he added, turning to the Knave.

The Knave shook his head sadly. 'Do I look like it?' he said. (Which he certainly did NOT, being made entirely of cardboard.)

'All right, so far,' said the King, and he went on muttering over the verses to himself: '"WE KNOW IT TO BE TRUE—" that's the jury, of course—"I GAVE HER ONE, THEY GAVE HIM TWO—" why, that must be what he did with the tarts, you know—'

'But, it goes on "THEY ALL RETURNED FROM HIM TO YOU,"' said Alice.

'Why, there they are!' said the King triumphantly, pointing to the tarts on the table. 'Nothing can be clearer than THAT. Then again—"BEFORE SHE HAD THIS FIT—" you never had fits, my dear, I think?' he said to the Queen.

'Never!' said the Queen furiously, throwing an inkstand at the Lizard as she spoke. (The unfortunate little Bill had left off writing on his slate with one finger, as he found it made no mark; but he now hastily began again, using the ink, that was trickling down his face, as long as it lasted.)

'Then the words don't FIT you,' said the King, looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.

'It's a pun!' the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

Vref+5
13th Dec 2013, 07:33
Anyone read the latest CASA annual report? According to their own report they have more senior managers than FOIs. And the number of staff earning over $180 000 increased by 50% in 1 year. No wonder we have to pay a fortune for everything and have to wait forever to get it

advo-cate
15th Dec 2013, 00:33
Senator Fawcett is encouraging all aviation people with a distinct problem with the regulations to contact the ASRR and make a submission.

Senator Fawcett is aware that numerous people have problems with the Terms of Reference (TOR) and could be concerned about where the information could end up.

He still wishes the industry to make submissions.

It is important to make the submission, particularly as the number of submissions is always important and just being part of a "group submission" does not get the "number clock" running. The group submission does give protection to you, but does not "click-over" the "number clock" that the ASRR has attached to this type of review.

The ASRR are well aware of this.

Consequently, I suggest that you do make a submission in the following format, which you can "cut-and-paste" and get your say recorded as to your problems with confidentiallity and record your feelings as well.

There is a specific form to be used, with the usual tick boxes, then a place to upload an attached file.

The point of contact is via this web-link. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions.aspx)

The following may assist you in formulating a response:

The Chair,
Mr. David Forsyth,
ASRR Panel,
CANBERRA 2600

Dear Sir,
SUBMISSION TO ASRR - 2013


I do wish to make a submission to the panel and am aware that the panels TOR are to investigate as follows:



the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;
the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);
the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety related regulations when benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions; and
any other safety related matters.

I have had a long experience as to how these matters are not working effectively in Australia through my own experience and with the Regulator (CASA) and at times, other agencies (such as AirServices and ATSB).

I am concerned that if I make a detailed submission to the ASRR, I and/or my business or people that I work with, will be submitted to recriminations or other sanctions, that will affect me personally or my ability to work in the aviation industry.

I believe the best way forward is to stop the flawed regulatory reform process immediately and introduce the CAA-NZ or FAA-FAR's immediately to stop the serious decline in aviation in Australia in safety, training, industry, maintenance and other areas.

I wish you to record my concerns and this submission and convey these to Senator Fawcett, Senator Xenophon and Minister Truss on receipt of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

The pro-forma was (with thanks) up-loaded (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2662) for your use and is in Word format.


The direct e-mail for the committee is: [email protected]

Senator Fawcett is very interested in the process of this and if you feel inclined, the Senator's e-mail is: [email protected]

Kharon
15th Dec 2013, 21:07
Too much palaver and amateur legalise. If it's a numbers game what about a simple submission supporting your favourite alphabet soup outfit. With the best will in the world, no panel will plough through and evaluate every single complex submission, no matter how well scripted, persuasive or multi coloured. Ones individual submission is just that, but 1000 supporting an organisation gives a sense of industry concord, 'unity' if you like; the non aligned affording credibility to an established membership statement.

Even if it's supporting the Kickatinalong aero club with a half dozen members, the submission carries the 'weight' of numbers. Get the 'boys' together, bring a slab, light the BBQ, kick it around, make some bullet points, expand into short paragraphs – PDF and click send. It's a worthwhile and a doddle, when KISS is applied.

By all means express your dissatisfaction with the ToR and security, it may make you feel better, it may even increase the 'numbers'; but, complaining after the event serves very little practical purpose. There is sod all chance of them doing it again, because "we wuz afeared". The only problem I can see is that the 'heavy duty' public submissions may not be available for reading until after the closing date, so perhaps if you contact the alphabet group of your choice a copy may be made available. You can always ask, they will value your support; they may even put on their website. (Hint).

I know – back to my knitting right.

Kharon
16th Dec 2013, 18:33
Sunny # 155 –"So herewith my submission:

LOL: Sad part is there's probably more sense, wisdom and correct interpretation within that passage than ever came out of Sleepy Hollow over than past few years. At least it can be transmogrified and parlayed into policy. It also serves as a mirror, sans smoke, the characters being easily identified. Tanks, for the laugh Sunny.

Frank Arouet
17th Dec 2013, 01:42
Bah! Humbug! What a patronising prat.


(purple suspect smilie).

bankrunner
17th Dec 2013, 09:23
Not only do you get pinged by CASA's tracking code if you click that link, you get pinged by pprune's advertisers too.

The direct link is (copy this into your browser and change the xx to tt):

hxxp://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/

It puzzles me why Truss thinks aviation is going to expand in the next 20 years, when GA has been shrinking for the past 20 with no sign of slowing down!

Frank Arouet
17th Dec 2013, 20:24
"Baldrick's law" would suggest he is "hatching a cunning plan".


It's either that, or he is ignorantly challenged, and simply not up to the job he is being paid to perform.


Wasn't he part of the team that promised to cut red tape, downsize the bureaucracy, and encourage growth in the economy?


Given the terms of reference and the lack of parliamentary protection, his enquiry appears to be following a script that guarantees a pre determined outcome.


None of which will achieve anything toward his pre election pledge. (yellow pukey smilie).

dubbleyew eight
20th Dec 2013, 08:17
I'm still stunned at the medical statistics that someone posted.
I thought Australia had a population of about 12,000 pilots.
the medical stats seemed to indicate 3,000 pilots a year for 3 years walking away from the wonderful warm fuzzy feeling elicited by casa.

most would have moved to an environment where the RAA staff listened to CASA, nodded sincerely but did nothing and let the guys just get on with it.

when do we get to a point where there is nothing left to regulate and the entire CASA staff can be amalgamated with the Canberra City Council Parking Inspectors ?

CASA are stuffing up so badly that it must become obvious ...surely.

bankrunner
21st Dec 2013, 12:10
I sent some information into the ASSR yesterday and the following was on the reply from the "secretariat":

Looks like a precanned warning that the department's email system tags onto every message on the way out.

I don't know why they bother though, not one email confidentiality warning footer has ever been found to be valid by any court in Australia.

Kharon
21st Dec 2013, 21:04
Xenophon " I note that the Canadian TSB has been commissioned to undertake an independent review of the ATSB’s reporting processes.

Not, for one moment would anyone seek to question the personal integrity of the Truss review panel members; but, is the 'review' starting to look just a bit soft around the edges? Time will tell the tale. However, from a purely turf accounting (bookie) perspective the odds against a meaningful epiphany need to be carefully evaluated.

If it is to be open slather on who reads the submissions, then perhaps some form of 'open' progress reporting or even public hearings should be contemplated. I'm not certain that I like the idea of all 'private' sit downs with panel selected individuals or groups. The Senate inquiry conducted the 'public hearings' very well, being both productive and informative. Surely a hearing room could be afforded the review, the big name public submissions discussed in open forum. The 'secret squirrel' concept of this review needs to be exorcised. It would be nice to see the panel actually doing the job, not phaffing about in 'camera'. Will there be a record of 'in camera' interviews a`la the Senate?. This review panel may need to rely on a little more than blind faith if it is to have credibility and succeed where other previous 'reviews' have failed. I think LS quoted some 20 odd failed attempts over the last 25 years, that cost - combined with the estimated AUD$ 250,000,000 dead loss on reform is starting to be a big number, even for a 'flush' government.

It is of concern to many that at the last ministerial iteration old Trusty was not a stellar performer and disappointed many punters. It is whispered that the special advisor has, on many occasions, publicly stated that CASA must not be criticised. Now, speculation is rife, is the Canadian connection 'muddled and complex'?, (thinks Montreal). There is a persistent, widely held precept that the MoC only appears to provide an establishment figure head; which only leaves the mystery Pohm (thinks EASA) to be evaluated. There is much speculation amongst the troops; theories of divine intervention in the form of the PMC; arguments that the Senate crew have an agenda to take over; there's even a notion of pointless, profitless effort being wasted against foregone conclusion; a letter to Santa being the preferred alternative for direct action.

Selah.

Kharon
26th Dec 2013, 07:08
There is much for the Truss committee (regulatory review panel, if you insist) to ponder this new year. Once again the indefatigable Sarcs brings home the bacon in post - #34 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520525-atsb-reviewed-canadian-tsb-2.html#post8233547)– here, on Pprune. In a quiet, unassuming way, manages to highlight several points with which the panel, to gain respect and credibility must deal. It's all to easy to quote ToR, hide behind guidelines, only interview the 'chosen' few and operate behind closed doors; hell's bells, my Grand Mamma could do that; (probably do a better job, if the Gin ain't adulterated).

CAUTION : You need to read the Sarcs post before proceeding. The discussion is simple – in 1990, the Canadians grasped the nettle and sorted out, with the full cooperation of their "CASA" two serious safety concerns; still endemic in Australia. Since then, in Canada, repeat incidents have reduced. "Twenty three years"; yes kids, that's 23 years later we are still trying to resolve 'our' own, unique, now beyond reason, safety ethos on these two matters; and making a complete bollocks of it.

Over the two issues Sarcs quotes, the Kanucks generated 27 + 48 = 75 safety recommendations, which they made stick, through education and regulatory modification. No fuss, no chest beating, no Wodgered reports: – just a safety conscious all around effort to eradicate a couple of problems. Guess what, they did it complete, not easy, but bless 'em all; the job got done, proper.

Big boots to fill Mr. Truss, big boots. If "our" unique, good (oh YUK) system is to improve. Can your hand picked wonder team of wet lettuce leaf wielders claw back from 23 years behind, to allegedly being No 1 in the world. Get on with it, quit poncing about, before Sunny 's great smoking hole appears in a back yard near you. Remember – Canely Vale came within a whisker of landing in (or on ) a school, in flames, followed by a fireball.

Aviation, a political non entity, really ? – I don't think so. And dare you Mr. Truss think real safety is not expensive - wait there for another while – listen - Tick tock.

Sarcs – I do intend to hunt you down and buy you a very well deserved beer or three; before the new year and offer you full membership of the BRB, (they're a rum crew, but I feel you'd be right at home).

Paragraph377
26th Dec 2013, 10:17
Kharon, inspiring post. And your reference to the Sarcs post is relevant. Your place within the IOS remains robust.
Sarcs, good post and good research. Your post earns you an IOS gold medallion and sees you move to the front of the line!

But, and there is always a 'but'. All is futile when you have a country where successive governments have run, hidden, manipulated, obsfucated and sodomised the truth. The cover up of regulatory incompetence, mismanagement of aviation, malfeasance and buggerisation of aviation has snowballed to a point where the way things currently are is normal (yes I know its a subjective word open to interpretation) It simply cannot be changed, fixed, rebuilt, polished, whatever you want to call it, without massive political fortitude, conviction and hard fought work. And that my friends will never ever occur under the current Australian system. Nupty's like Albo and Truss won't even slap CAsA with a limp piece of Creamy's stale lettuce let alone grab a spiny pineapple and shove it up CAsA's kyber sideways.
It is going to take a Sunfish smoking hole or some kind of sudden robust power is bestowed upon the Independents, like a miracle from heaven, for them to make any headway.

Both the FAA and TC have made positive steps forward in their safety and regulatory oversight only due to the perseverance, balls, power and intellect of certain politicians. Unfortunately we have just a fistful of aligned Senators taking up the mantle, and it just won't work.
Sorry to piss on your parade boys but Truss and his 'Lettucesexuals' will achieve exactly what they have set out to achieve - SFA.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JdRay0iwCUo

Frank Arouet
26th Dec 2013, 21:33
There is only one solution to "the problem" and that is a political solution.


To aid the political solution they need a clearly defined one sentence aim in which to pursue. (They get confused you see). I think they already know the system is buggered and the people in charge of "buggerance" will fade away with time or replacement, albeit with mentoring by the departed so nothing changes. Therefor the politicians need a new system that isn't buggered yet, that will please all, and they will be seen to be doing something. It will bring an end to the regulatory review process and the waste of taxpayers money. The plebiscite will be suitably amazed and the world will be saved. To this end the clearly defined aim should be;


To replace the existing flawed and potentially catastrophically fatal system with a world industry acceptable system such as exists in US/ NZ/ PNG.


Karma will get the manipulating miscreant's. (Or someone with a reason). But this is a different problem and needs a different Aim or objective.

dubbleyew eight
27th Dec 2013, 11:38
damnit frank put canada at the front of that list!!!!!

Frank Arouet
27th Dec 2013, 22:42
How ignorant of me not to include the Dominion in the Northern Hemisphere. I apologize and prostrate myself in their direction by the great circle route. (that being the shortest distance I believe).


Oh, and the public should be made aware. Or did I say that already?

Sarcs
28th Dec 2013, 06:33
IMO if you begin by fixing the ATsB and making them truly independent, like the TSBC, then you are well on the way to addressing the bureaucratic embuggerance of the Oz aviation safety system.:ugh:

Although loosely modelled on the Yank's NTSB, the TSBC's act should be seriously looked at (Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.4/page-1.html)) as a template for a possible TSI Act 2003 replacement. Consideration should also be given to totally divorcing the ATsB from the purse strings of the Department and directly reportable to the Parliament.:cool:

Not sure about the Canuck's CARs, they do seem to largely mirror the US FARs... : Canuck CARs (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-96-433.pdf)


At least they're contained within 1000 pages and would probably be less if they didn't have to run a French version alongside...:rolleyes:


But perhaps it would be more advantageous to aim for regional uniformity (i.e. the NZ regs) but you could do a lot worse than adopting the TSBC model for our transport safety investigator, coupled with a purge of the senior ranks of both Fort Fumble and ATsBeaker...:E

Till then....TICK TOCK! :ok:

Creampuff
28th Dec 2013, 07:19
Not sure about the Canuck's CARs, they do seem to largely mirror the US FARs... : Canuck CARsA third the size of Australia's Frankenstein. And it would be a sixth if they didn't have to duplicate the text in English and French. :rolleyes:

Kharon
29th Dec 2013, 00:55
But perhaps it would be more advantageous to aim for regional uniformity (i.e. the NZ regs) but you could do a lot worse than adopting the TSBC model for our transport safety investigator, coupled with a purge of the senior ranks of both Fort Fumble and ATsBeaker

A third the size of Australia's Frankenstein

Seems as though size does not matter, it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog.

Kharon
29th Dec 2013, 01:19
This Truss review panel is going to need (like it or not) to address some big issues. Whether these issues go quietly into the night or not will very much depend how well the smoke, mirrors and ToR preventing clarity are circumvented. A fair test of this will be seen in two forms, the ministers response to Pel Air; and, whether the Senate committee responsible for the Pel Air inquiry turn out to be sheep in wolves clothing; or the real deal 'wolf pack'.

Much depends on independent Nick Xenophon being supported by the other 'bi-partisan' Senate committee members. In terms of the 'regulatory deformation' process, NX has made a start, upsetting the CAO 48/ FRMS apple cart. There is much empirical evidence and scientific study which makes a nonsense of the CASA non science of flight crew fatigue. NX nailed this down during the inquiry into 'pilot training', ran with it through the Pel Air inquiry and, put his money where his mouth was, blocking the shambles known as CAO 48. The bi-partisan committee, although quiet must at least tacitly support his cause. For example; despite fatigue being blithely ruled as an irrelevance in the Norfolk ditching; fatigue was clearly a factor.

Although the serious safety based questions hanging over the ATSB, their relationship with CASA, the abysmal quality of their recent reports and the implications to industry being fed and reliant on non relevant or misleading safety information is not within the ToR for the Truss panel; the whole package is of critical relevance to 'safety'. The Sarcs posts – 34 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520516-atsb-reports-6.html#post8236057) – 104 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520525-atsb-reviewed-canadian-tsb-2.html#post8233547)– here on PPRuNe leave little room for argument that the fine work and positive safety outcomes generated by the – TSB reports (TSB A11W0048 http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11w0048/a11w0048.asp) - serve to highlight the depths to which our very own ATSB have plummeted.


T28 #105 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520516-atsb-reports-6.html#post8236080) -"Has been on my mind for some time, is the "fix" in ? one might be a little concerned given the number of Montreal trips and the close association of the witch doctor in Montreal that the "fix" is indeed well and truly "in" we hope not but hope is a slippery thing to hold onto.
This is a racing certainty. One does not need clairvoyance or voodoo to agree with the T28D opinion of the lettuce leaf review. These issues may not be covered by the trite, narrow, nugatory Truss ToR, but they are crucial to safety. The Senators recognised this, industry recognises this, hells bells, the world and it's wife realises this. So here we are then, nearly into another new year, dragging the last 25 years of baggage behind us. It's not as if the Senators are unaware; it's not as if the bi-partisan political horsepower is lacking: we've all seen all the Senators challenge the grip of the iron ring, unafraid to beard the lions in their dens.

Now good Senators; will you let Truss and his minders undo all your good work? What's it to be Senators ?; will ye be seen as wolves or sheep ?.

Tick Tock indeed.

Sarcs
29th Dec 2013, 04:38
Kharon: Much depends on independent Nick Xenophon being supported by the other 'bi-partisan' Senate committee members. In terms of the 'regulatory deformation' process, NX has made a start, upsetting the CAO 48/ FRMS apple cart. There is much empirical evidence and scientific study which makes a nonsense of the CASA non science of flight crew fatigue. NX nailed this down during the inquiry into 'pilot training', ran with it through the Pel Air inquiry and, put his money where his mouth was, blocking the shambles known as CAO 48. The bi-partisan committee, although quiet must at least tacitly support his cause. For example; despite fatigue being blithely ruled as an irrelevance in the Norfolk ditching; fatigue was clearly a factor.

Creamy (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-84.html#post8214819): The next time the government asks The Greens for its ‘wish-list’ in return for support for some government legislation (as has already happened with the ‘debt ceiling’), what is the risk to The Greens and how hard would it be for them to add to the list: “Finalisation of substantive actions to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations”? You might find this a revelation, but members of The Greens may have the smarts to work out that it’s in the public interest for those recommendations to be properly addressed.

Okay so we all agree the TASRR fix is firmly in place :ugh: and the Government response to PelAir recommendations will go begging :{ unless the non-aligned Senators (including the Greens..Creamy!:E) create an alliance to force the Government to appropriately address the PelAir report recommendations.:D

IMO it is also crucial to aviation safety in this country that the current executive culture within the ATsB is fixed and that respective governments of either colour pay respect and action, not lipservice, their common rhetorical mantra of "aviation safety is...(our)... number one priority".:(

To follow on from the Kharon post and on the subject of fatigue...:cool:

Over the last decade, in aviation safety circles, the buzzword has been human factors. As a consequence we saw the rise of HF experts with scientific based research exploring the human element causal to accidents/incidents; i.e. why do pilots, engineers, controllers etc continue to make, sometimes fatal, critical errors??:ok:

We then saw government agencies/authorities employing these HF experts to further promote/foster this new proactive safety age of trying to address the human error element in transport accidents.:D

In Australia Fort Fumble and the ATsB followed suit, employing their own HF experts. However after the previous 2 Senate Inquiries (especially PelAir) it became obvious that these HF experts were only ever meant to be 'seen not heard'.:= They weren't meant to be making waves by producing potentially revealing, embarassing audits of the supposedly compliant, bigend of town Operator/Airline Safety Management and Fatigue Risk Management systems (ala Ben Cook's audits of a certain airline's YPDN base Flight & Duty practices and his Special Audit report on the PelAir FRMS).:ugh:

The following article, from one of those bothersome "HF experts", highlights that the HF FRMS conundrum is not just isolated to Australia
Opinion: The Price of Reducing Pilot Fatigue (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_23_2013_p54-647723.xml&p=2)

By Ashley Nunes


In 2009, Colgan Air 3407 crashed while landing at Buffalo, N.Y., killing all 49 people on board. An investigation determined that leading up to the crash, pilot performance was likely impaired by fatigue: a finding that came as no surprise to safety advocates who had long recognized its dangers.

In the 1980s, NASA dedicated an entire research program to understanding fatigue. The effort was groundbreaking for its time, as researchers examined the influence of sleep loss and interruption on brain function, muscle activity and alertness. Those measures were used to paint a snapshot of fatigue, based on when pilots flew, how long they flew and how much rest they had obtained before the flight. The program laid the critical groundwork for the development of the fatigue management standards used today.

However, these standards have faced stiff resistance from air carriers. For example, when the FAA recently announced limits on night flying, cargo carriers successfully lobbied for exclusion because of the “unreasonable” $550 million price tag. That decision appalled many. Robert Travis, president of the Independent Pilots Association, notes that it was not the government's intent to address the important issue of pilot fatigue “only if the price is right.” Perhaps not, but costs are precisely why fatigue management standards are opposed; they reduce profit margins by limiting how much productivity can be squeezed out of workers. And in a climate of fierce economic competition, airlines hesitate to pass on any additional costs to customers.

Unsurprisingly, safety advocates lauded the FAA rule. Nico Voorbach, president of the European Cockpit Association, says that unlike European governments, the U.S. has taken a decisive step toward what a wide body of scientific medical research recommends to be safe. But does science really support the assertion that fatigue reduces safety? And more important, does the public value efforts to manage fatigue?

Justification of fatigue management standards is based on more than three decades of scientific research. Yet although these studies have examined the impact of fatigue on everything from oxygen levels in the brain to short-term memory, a mere handful have examined how fatigue affects a pilot's flying ability. This is surprising because today's technology allows monitoring of every facet of the job. Was too little engine power used during takeoff? Was too much brake pressure applied during landing? If so, the system has a record of it. And if a fatigued pilot is doing something dangerous, we should know about it.

Anecdotes tell of sleepy captains forgetting to extend flaps before takeoff to overworked first officers nodding off at the controls while in command. In one recent case, a fatigued Air Canada pilot sent an airliner into a 400-ft. dive over the North Atlantic after mistaking the planet Venus for another aircraft on a collision course. Sixteen passengers were seriously injured. However, standards must be based on methodologically sound research, not anecdotes, and as yet, the relevant research is lacking.

Whether the public values such efforts is a difficult question. A recent public opinion survey found that 82% of passengers rank fatigue as their most important air travel concern. But are their concerns reflected by their behavior? In 2006, a British television station used secret film to substantiate allegations that Ryanair forced its pilots to work excessively fatiguing schedules, flying multiple consecutive flights a day through congested airspace with few opportunities for rest.

How did customers respond? By helping Ryanair grow from a tiny, impoverished Irish carrier to Europe's largest airline, and a very profitable one at a time when some of its competitors are facing loses and insolvency. The secret to Ryanair's success is simple: cheap fares. Clearly, public concerns over fatigue are tempered by the prospect of flying from Brussels to Barcelona for €14.99 ($21).

Ryanair is hardly unique among its peers when it comes to reports of fatigue. But its remarkable growth despite such reports forces us to face a harsh reality: If passengers want air travel to be safe, they must be willing to pay for it.

Until governments, bureaucrats and airlines alike, realise that properly implemented FRMS/SMS are safety risk mitigators that are now essential to good, safe business practice then the bureau and Fort Fumble, 'beyond all sensible reason', will continue to operate in a vacuum, without scrutiny, without oversight and where aviation safety is in fact their very last priority....:ugh:

TICK..TOCK indeed!:yuk::yuk:

Addendum:

Recieved a PM from an IOS member suggesting I copy across some of my recent GA thread posts as they are somewhat relevant to this thread but I now see Kharon has linked them.:ok:

In case you missed the links:

TSBC in-flight breakup report a benchmark for ATsB?? (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520516-atsb-reports-6.html#post8236057)

Senator X questions veracity of the TSBC review?? & research report comparison. (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520525-atsb-reviewed-canadian-tsb-2.html#post8233547)

halfmanhalfbiscuit
29th Dec 2013, 18:53
Quote:
Not sure about the Canuck's CARs, they do seem to largely mirror the US FARs... : Canuck CARs
A third the size of Australia's Frankenstein. And it would be a sixth if they didn't have to duplicate the text in English and French. :rolleyes:


Too many factions in CASA pulling toward FAA, EASA and TC. I heard a rumour they were always advised to pick one either FAA or EASA and stick with it by both the FAA and EASA. I bet Canada and NZ based their regulations on one set?

Kharon
30th Dec 2013, 04:02
NX- blogs "I admit I’m pretty ‘useless’ – at least when it comes to putting out blogs. It’s been a long time between drinks and my New Year’s resolution is to blog more often."

Now you have become a tendentious blogger, does this act qualify you as a fully fledged member of the Ills of Society? Could the blog could end up an extension of Pprune?; discussing matters such the Pel Air response, (or lack thereof); the CAO 48 rumble, the CASR bun-fight or even a repository for the IOS comments on the Truss wet lettuce leaf 'review' of aviation safety regulation. Or perhaps this little gem:-

The opening paragraph on the Infrastructure website under the heading of “Confidentiality and Personal Information” which advises:
Your submission, including any personal information supplied, will be provided by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (the Department) to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel and its specialist advisers (as required) for the purpose of undertaking the review and preparing their report.

Seriously though, consider signing up and posting the odd sensible comment for consideration, you just never know –

Nick's Blog (http://nickxenophon.com.au/nicks-blog/)

Sarcs
31st Dec 2013, 06:15
Kharon:D: Now you have become a tendentious blogger, does this act qualify you as a fully fledged member of the Ills of Society? Could the blog could end up an extension of PPRuNe?; discussing matters such the Pel Air response, (or lack thereof); the CAO 48 rumble, the CASR bun-fight or even a repository for the IOS comments on the Truss wet lettuce leaf 'review' of aviation safety regulation.
Perhaps Senator X could do a blog piece on the TASRR ToRs, I'm sure he would get plenty of comments on that contentious subject matter...:E

What a year it has been and let's hope that in the coming year a few more DIPs develop at least half the testicular fortitude of Senator Nick and take on the current malaise within the embuggered aviation safety bureaucracy....:eek:

Reflections '13: For reflections on the year, that has been, we only need revisit the following pprune threads (links are 2013 year specific):

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-45.html#post7605332)& current version Merged: Senate Inquiry (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-67.html#post7934714)

The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/164130-regulatory-reform-program-will-drift-along-forever-13.html#post7670298)& current version Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/490723-merged-casa-regulatory-reform.html)

And for this thread and where we now end the year you can't go past Kharon's post at #181 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-10.html#post8237276) :ok:

Revelations '13: We've all known for way too many years that Fort Fumble is morally bankrupt and that the RRP will 'drift along forever', so personally my disturbing revelation for '13 is just how rooted our once highly respected and credible aviation accident investigative agency has become, especially in the last five years under Beaker's beyond all reason reign.:ugh: Besides the PelAir report (AAI Inquiry Report (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/index)) this fall, to a spiral dive of oblivion, is perhaps best highlighted in the following GA threads: ATSB reports (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520516-atsb-reports.html) & ATSB to be reviewed by Canadian TSB (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520525-atsb-reviewed-canadian-tsb.html)

In looking to the future (i.e. 2014) we quite often look to the past first, so let's flashback to 2004 and reflect on the words of an IOS founding member on the subject of the ATSB:
KEEP A LITTLE SALT HANDY THIS WEEK, PLEASE …
IN CASE ANOTHER ATSB REPORT COMES OUT


I urge members of the Press Corps to keep a grain or two of salt handy this week. It may be needed when ATSB publishes its report into the Aviation Incident which occurred near Launceston on Christmas Eve.

The Report will probably be released this week, and it may contain the kind of inaccuracy for which the ATSB is rapidly developing a reputation. Before you go to camera, microphone or print on it, please contact us by phone or e-mail so we can – if necessary - tell you what ATSB may have chosen not to reveal.

The Aviation Incident is being beaten up for industrial reasons. Changes were made to Australia’s management of airspace. These changes take us part of the way out of the “quill pen and green eye-shade” era in which our airspace management has been for the past 50 years. Our airspace is now managed like that of the USA, which has an outstanding safety record – and there is far more flying in the USA than in any other country.

Those changes, sadly, are apparently seen by the leaders of the Air Traffic Controllers’ Union as a threat to their members’ jobs rather than the opportunity for professional development that they are,

The relationship between ATSB and the Air Traffic Controllers is a close one – so close that ATSB appointed a former Air Traffic Controller to investigate this incident.

ATSB has been widely criticised for its conduct of investigations. For example –

Mr. Wayne Chivell - Coroner, South Australia, July 2003

"Mr. Fearon was made available by the ATSB to answer as many questions as he could arising from Mr. Cavenagh's evidence.

"The difficulty I have with Mr. Fearon's evidence on this topic is that he is happy to seize upon data, such as that produced by Mr. Braly, as supporting his theory, but when contradictory data was put to him he reverted to rather facile positions.

"......Mr Fearon's evidence became unhelpfully speculative.

"I find the ATSB's theory, namely................., as to be so unlikely as to be almost fanciful.

"In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly against the ATSB theory...........

"As each of these technical issues were put to (The ATSB's) Mr. Cavenagh and Mr. Fearon their explanations and arguments became more abstruse and less credible. I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved.

Ms Lyn McDade - Deputy Northern Territory Coroner, March 2003.

"ATSB apparently acting on the advice of others determined that they would not attend the accident site because it appeared to be an accident involving pilot error only. The basis for that determination could not be explored... ...because Mr. Heitman the ATSB representative who made that determination was not able to give evidence because he could not be located. This has deprived the family of the opportunity to test Mr. Heitman and ascertain why he formed the view about the accident he clearly did, without attending the scene or conducting any other enquiries other than telephone contacts with, it appears, Senior Sergeant B and nobody else."

Mr. Alistair Hope - Coroner, Western Australia, September 2002

"I should stress at the outset that any comments in relation to the performance of the ATSB are made in the context where eight people have unnecessarily lost their lives, such a tragic event in my view requires careful analysis of available evidence and where answers are not forthcoming because of a lack of evidence, an examination should take place as to the way in which evidence has been obtained and possible deficiencies in obtaining evidence identified, which should be corrected in future cases if such tragedies are not to be repeated on a continuing basis."

Mr. Kurt Mackiewicz - Father of deceased pilot, on the ABC in July 2003

"The protracted investigation was attributable to the ATSB's questionable culture and also their arrogant and obstructionist conduct at the inquiry."

Mr. Peter Scollard – Pilot involved at Launceston, in the Hobart Mercury on December 29th. 2003

"I was fully aware of the Virgin Blue plane's presence at all times, I was monitoring it on two radio frequencies and I was maintaining separation. It is quite simple for me to diverge one or two degrees. At no stage was there ever going to be a collision or even a near-collision."

Peter has good reason for concern. ATSB has not given him a copy of the transcript of the radio transmissions at the time of the incident, even though he took part in the transmissions. If all ATSB was doing was carrying out a “no blame” investigation, why on earth would they not give him a copy so that he could, for example, point out any transcription errors? To make matters worse it seems that a copy of that transcript, or a tape of the transmissions, has been made available to others!

If you were investigating with the intention of finding out what had happened, once you has made a transcript of a recording wouldn’t you send it to ALL those whose voices were on the tape asking them to verify the transcription? But if you were seeking “an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached” (to quote Coroner Chivell) then you might well be selective about who got the transcript and who did not.

So keep that salt handy and be sure to give us a call on 08 8276 4600 if you feel an urge to report on whatever character assassination it is that ATSB has in store for Peter.

Boyd Munro
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA
And for a more general reflection let's take it back a century to 1914 care of Adam Gopnik's article: Two Ships (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2014/01/06/140106taco_talk_gopnik?mbid=social_tablet_t)

Hmm..contemplating '14 with much more to follow but approaching TOPD for next year, enjoy NYE and catch ya next year....cheers and many beers Sarcs :ok:

Kharon
31st Dec 2013, 12:01
So, Looky loo, Blackhand, Trolls and Casa-philes in general – 30 minutes of the old year left. Would you perhaps care to make a statement?; rebutting any or all of the Sarcs post above? – No ! - why am I not surprised?? I should of course, in concise, elegant terms, define exactly why not. However: as a gentle-man; and, what with it being new years eve and all, I decline this one time, to publicly do so.

I will await, with some faith, the parliamentary verdict on the aviation "safety" department performance. I have some patience with even the weak kneed Truss effort. But do be aware that even though the 2013 'performance' passed muster, (just) the parliamentary credibility test barrier; and, even reasonable doubt (parliamentary style) served you well: 2014 will be the year of veritas. Cash, and no bullshit. The houseboat thrives on forward bookings.

Here endeth my 2014 resolution. Selah.

shortfuse-flanagan
31st Dec 2013, 23:01
Fair go Kharon, they are on a 17.5 % leave loaded 'free' holiday somewhere. Safety doesn't appear to be suffering because of their absence. They would serve us all by extending that stay.

Kharon
1st Jan 2014, 21:10
UITA – the Geoff Edwards – 2009 article linked to post #189 (above) is a full on 26 page reading event. For those contemplating making a submission to the Truss review it is worth taking the time to read at least the first 15 or 20 pages; there is some very good research and 'interesting' facts tucked away in the missive. You may not agree with some (or all) of the conclusions drawn, it is 'academic'. But if you are stuck for a phrase, or an idea to help frame a submission, you may just find some inspiration.

The thing that troubles is despite the many millions of dollars spent, thousands of pages published, numerous reviews, inquiries, commissions etc. etc. nothing seems to have changed much. It's a little like watching the desert, the ever shifting surface sands move to present an altered landscape, the core remains as ever, unchanged.

Heigh Ho - FWIW – I cherry picked some appetisers:-

P5 It is widely agreed that by the mid-1980s the Australian regulations had become too complex and anachronistic. But that does not give any hint as to whether the remedy lay in more government action or less: Yeend claimed that by 1985 there was a first class team within the regulator “already tackling a major up-date” (1994:402) but pilots’ lobby group AOPA claimed that the rules were a product of empire building petty bureaucrats: “...voluminous and disorganised sets of orders, rules, regulations, standards and sundry publications... [drafted by] twenty odd legal buffoons” (2000).
P6-“At its core, safety isn’t cost-effective” said Schiavo, former US Inspector-General of Transportation (1997:48). The marginal cost of preventing fatalities in aviation is very high. In Nader & Smith’s words (1994:317) “Safety always extracts a cost, whether in money, time, convenience or all of these.” That society places a limit on safety expenditure or, more bluntly, that human life has a price, is manifest in the fact that the budgets for road improvements are always contestable and always limited. One has only to visit a public hospital to learn that life is not sacrosanct, that there is a continual trade-off with financial expense. To Ramsden (1976:76), the fact that no airlines offer all rear-facing seats or full-body webbing restraints was evidence that safety can take second place to convenience or profit.

P6-Broderick (2001) found a remarkable correlation between accident rates and effective
governmental implementation of ICAO’s standards. He credited part of the global improvement to ICAO’s move in the mid-1990s to mandatory audits. “...good government aviation safety oversight results in airlines having good safety records. It’s that simple!” If it really is that simple, the converse conclusion also follows: if things go wrong, the government can be blamed.

P7-The James Reason model of safety preparedness portrays accidents simply as occupying the apex of a pyramid of causation that fails at several levels. Reason’s model is now internationally mainstream within aviation circles, though Young & Faulkner (2005) have argued that the pendulum has swung too far toward blaming management for latent systems weaknesses. There is still such a thing as human error.
P9- Australian Transport Safety Bureau

The Bureau proudly proclaims itself as `independent’ because it is institutionally separate within the transport portfolio from the regulator, the service deliverer and the policy office. The Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 provides that the Executive Director is “not subject to directions from the Minister or the Secretary” in exercising their powers under this Act (s.15). However, the depth of independence is contestable. Some claim that the body cannot be independent unless it is situated within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and so not accountable to the same minister as CASA; or even directly funded by the parliament so that it is `independent’ of all ministerial departments. On funding, an insider wrote anonymously: “The [US] NTSB gets its funding by a direct allocation by Congress. We do not. Our budget is determined by the Secretary of the Dept and is being steadily tightened.”

Seven years later, the 2009 amendments seem to address this long-standing issue. When ICAO in its February 2008 “Safety Oversight Audit” (AIG/01, 1-6-01) gently chided Australia because the performance indicators had been based on the budget allotted to ATSB, whereas ideally, the typical number of accidents and incidents should be used as a basis of determining the budget, this was one of the only 3 out of 48 findings that Australia declined to accept at least in part – because it was “impractical…within resources available.” Budget was driving safety, still.

P9- Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Before the reforms of 1988 and later, the staff had apparently been proud of their record: “...there was, over a period of 40 years [1948-1988], a complete body of safety regulations established... It was not perfect, but it was the foundation of the best safety record in the history of aviation” (Yeend, 1994a:2,5,6). Yet “Despite our record and experience, the industry clamoured for a new civil aviation authority, loudly supported by the aviation press in the late 1980s. I am one of those who was in that process labelled as part of the dead hand and the cement-headed bureaucracy of the 1980s” (1994:6). Yeend deplored the self-serving capture of the Authority in the early reforms by “some industry operators and adventurers” and the destruction of corporate expertise.

Either his was a rose-coloured perspective or relationships deteriorated rapidly in the wake of the restructure. By 1989 more than 61% of staff in a survey said they would not recommend CAA as an employer (John Walker, 1989). Worse was to come. According to witnesses Foley and Haines, within CASA there was instituted a “culture of fear, fiat and favouritism” (TQS, 1994) commencing in early 1991, when under Dick Smith the Authority was reviewed and
restructured.

Sarcs
2nd Jan 2014, 04:38
Yes the Edwards article is still very relevant, five years may have passed but we as a modern supposedly 1st world aviation safety administrator have not progressed:ugh::ugh:instead....
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/ostrich20ignorance-resized-600.png

So Edwards three fundamental observations stand the test of time so far..:=:
First, some of the internal problems have not yet been resolved. The 2008 Issues Paper and Green Paper and public submissions indicate that a coordinated and forward-looking air traffic policy is missing; tensions characterise the relationship between CASA and ATSB; and after more than a decade, the conversion of regulations to performance-based format is still incomplete. Was CASA’s skills base eroded too much in the 1990s or is the whole notion of non-prescriptive regulation misconceived anyway?

Second, global air travel is extraordinarily safe. Internationally, safety is not politicised and is not a subject of geo-political wrangling. Governments can achieve extraordinary results if they apply collective minds to an objective that is accepted as being in the public interest of all.

Third, the instability has been fuelled by the lack of a shared understanding of whether the safety regime’s customers are industry, the travelling public or the community. Until the leadership articulates a clear conception of public interest, the staff will never know whose interests they labour to serve. Meanwhile Ben :Dhas published his wishlist/expectations/predictions for 2014 and lo' and behold guess what it is at the top of the list??:confused::Air safety administration

A Senate committee will ask very detailed questions as to precisely how the Federal Police investigated the earlier concerns of the committee which considered the ATSB Pel-Air crash report, and referred possible breaches of the law by CASA to the AFP. The Federal Police will be asked if certain lines of inquiry were discontinued or disregarded.

My expectation is that a massive whitewash will be attempted, and … it won’t wash. I’m happy to say on a reasonable reading of all of the evidence that the ATSB and CASA probably conspired to suppress incompetence on the part of CASA, that the Transport Safety Investigation Act was offended, and that they set out to frame the pilot of the flight in a manner severely prejudicial to all tests of procedural fairness and failed to produce a report which meets internationally accepted standards of an air accident investigation by a first world country.

I expect that the treatment by various parties of the injuries and personal damage suffered by one of the survivors of that crash will shame all concerned, and that includes in the Opposition as well as Government.

I am concerned that this Government will try suppress disclosures about the ATSB and CASA that reflect very poorly on their current administration on the basis that our country should go to sleep and not be disturbed by such matters.

However I am especially concerned that this will lead to Australia being sanctioned by the US administration on the issue of governance and performance in air safety administration and that it will do to this country what it did to Israel, another very important ally, and bust us down to second tier status, causing the cancellation of the US code shares vital to Qantas and Virgin Australia as well as other negative consequences.

I expect that the Minister has, or will, ask why nothing material has been done change the ludicrously stupid regulations that apply to the refuelling of oceanic flights by Australian run air ambulance services in the more than four years since the Pel-Air crash occurred.

It is not unreasonable to expect the Minister to ask tough questions about CASA’s chronic inability to protect the public from operations it knew to be dangerous in advance such as those involving the late Barry Hempel and Transair, the operator that slaughtered 15 people in the Lockhart River crash of 2005.

I expect the Minister to come under pressure from both sides of the house to bring aviation accident investigations in this country into line with the open hearing practices of ICAC in NSW re the criminality of the previous NSW State Government and the Pink Batts Royal Commission and the various open inquiries into priests fiddling with our children and being protected by churches and organisations acting with evil and loathsome intent to deny justice to the victims and their families.

(The writer has expectations that go way beyond air transport.)

But these are only expectations, and they may not be fulfilled.
Subsequently Ben's IOS 2014 annual membership has been accepted as paid in full...:ok:

Addendum:

My 2 bob's worth..:E Coroner Chivell's quote.."I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved."...perfectly sums up the standard modus operandi
for both the ATSBeaker & Fort Fumble and should be the IOS catchcry for '14...:rolleyes:

Paragraph377
2nd Jan 2014, 10:59
My 2014 prediction is that we will see the increased use of the wet lettuce leaf. Nothing has happened over the past 24 years to give me any confidence that a positive 12 degree bank to the left has started. Australia is still caught up in a phugoid motion, and more nose down than anything.
Unfortunately Clarise the lambs are still crying.

Nothing definitive will take place because nobody in power cares. Things weren't much better in New Zealand in the 70's until the Erebus accident. It then took a long time for things to start to change for the better but it did happen, although things are still not perfect. Several accidents in Canada in the 90's were a catalyst that saw their hands twisted by those in high places, and again positive changes were made by TC, and as a result safety standards improved.

Australia is in an aviation safety slumber ........... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ .......... The standard of the CASA and what is now the ATSB is proof that mental illness truly is an underestimated illness with far reaching tentacles. What other excuse could there be? An FAA downgrade or smouldering hull appear to be the only two unpalatable options at this point in time that could trigger change.

Tendentious bloggers like Xenophon, and succinct reporters like Sandilands are certainly a breath of fresh air, but they are two very small pawns in the giant CASA ocean. Until Australian aviators hand power to the Independent politicians the only way change will occur will be by way of something I have sadly experienced before, and you really really don't want to go there my friends.
No, 2014 will see more government obsfucation, the occasional bitch slap with a wet lettuce leaf by the Minister, lots of tough talk with no action, and lots of clever little decoys designed to fool the masses into believing our skies are actually safe.
So grab the beer and popcorn, plant some fresh lettuce seeds, stock up on the turd polish and raise your eyes skywards because 2014 will absolutely be the year of the wet lettuce leaf!

I believe this is now customary? TICK TOCK

scrubba
2nd Jan 2014, 14:11
Dancing Dog,

I guess we are all just ignoring it because the report is already drafted and we are now just going through the motions of appearing to consult with the great unwashed out there :ugh:

Try a couple of lines down the list for something containing clues like Truss and Aviation Safety Regulation Review :{ :{ :{

Looks a bit like:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review.html

Kharon
2nd Jan 2014, 18:57
Coroner Chapel's quote.."I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved."..

In one way it's a very good thing that we don't have many coroners reports to work with, mostly due to industry efforts. Conversely, the one's we do have seem marred by double tragedy; there is the easily discernable human side, in those left behind from Lockhart, Hempell etc. Less obvious is the effect of subtle, but premeditated systematic abuse, the lack of accountability, the dismissive attitude to recommendation and the manipulation of a system to ensure that under no circumstances can the status quo be upset. The well practiced process is clearly visible in the AAT, it's not even subtle there. Which brings us to the parliamentary system of inquiry.

Are we to expect more of the same with the present whimsical Truss effort?

A Senate committee will ask very detailed questions as to precisely how the Federal Police investigated the earlier concerns of the committee which considered the ATSB Pel-Air crash report, and referred possible breaches of the law by CASA to the AFP. The Federal Police will be asked if certain lines of inquiry were discontinued or disregarded.

The - Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/02/some-expectations-for-2014/)– offering carefully highlights issues which will not be dealt with by the Truss review panel; indeed it is verboten. If the Murky Machiavellian department don't like your submission, it will be placed in pile 'D' for dump. You may have to wait a long wait before these answers are carefully eased quietly out into the real world. By then, those who are aware will have died of boredom, broken heart or booze and riotous living.

My expectation is that a massive whitewash will be attempted, and … it won’t wash. I’m happy to say on a reasonable reading of all of the evidence that the ATSB and CASA probably conspired to suppress incompetence on the part of CASA, that the Transport Safety Investigation Act was offended, and that they set out to frame the pilot of the flight in a manner severely prejudicial to all tests of procedural fairness and failed to produce a report which meets internationally accepted standards of an air accident investigation by a first world country.

Not to worry Ben, time will cure this problem, slowly but with surety the little problems will slip away into the night while the Smoke and Mirrors department waft away the stench over the next couple of years.

I expect that the Minister has, or will, ask why nothing material has been done change the ludicrously stupid regulations that apply to the refuelling of oceanic flights by Australian run air ambulance services in the more than four years since the Pel-Air crash occurred.

Sorry mate, the minor issues of fuel rules is a newcomer to regulatory reform; some of the rules have been patiently queued up for 25 years awaiting the attention of the reformers. A non fatal swimming exhibition where the flaws in the BoM, CASA, ATSB and ASA systems are exposed does not get priority: no! (little foot stamp) there is a protocol and process in place to deal with these minor irritations.

The serenity of Sleepy Hollow and all who graze in the lush, Elysian fields must not be disturbed, least of all by those miscreant elements who had the temerity to survive. And anyway, there is a welcome party for four newcomers to prepare, overseas guests are always especially welcome.

Now Sir, will you have nuts or a cigar?

Prince Niccolo M
3rd Jan 2014, 01:11
Has anyone seen any evidence of the RRAT Committee actually referring the alleged breaches of the TSIA 03?


Is there a public document that establishes a timeline for any subsequent examination of the AFP's actions?

LeadSled
3rd Jan 2014, 01:58
----and after more than a decade, the conversion of regulations to performance-based format is still incomplete.
Folks,
The above, of course, from the Edwards paper quoted in previous posts.
But, of course, you all realised, didn't you, how out of date is the reference to "performance based" regulation, with the present regime at CASA completely abandoning performance based regulation, with a return to complex and ultra-prescriptive regulation, based on a very narrow and literal interpretation of S.9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
Tootle pip!!

PS: IN my personal view, the Edwards paper is interesting, but the selection of quotes from a selection of sources is a very personal one. I, for one, would not agree with many of the "conclusions", which you are expected to make.

Sarcs
3rd Jan 2014, 06:43
PNM:Has anyone seen any evidence of the RRAT Committee actually referring the alleged breaches of the TSIA 03?

How about this Prince Nick....from Hansard of CASA - RRAT, 18/11/2013, Estimates:Senator XENOPHON: But, Minister, with respect, the Senate unanimously handed down its findings, and they were scathing findings by any objective measure. It was a damning report of CASA and the ATSB—absolutely damning. No-one can criticise the methodology of the committee and the forensic work that the committee put into this.

Insofar as there are a number of recommendations made based on what the committee found to be very serious failures in respect of the Pel-Air investigation, then surely that is relevant in looking at systemic failures on the part of CASA and the ATSB.

Senator SINODINOS: I do not think we are talking at cross-purposes. I am just saying that this is not a forum to replay the whole of that investigation.

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, but insofar as the Senate made a number of recommendations that were scathing of the ATSB and CASA—

Senator SINODINOS: All of which is on the public record.

Senator XENOPHON: from my point of view we do not want it swept under the carpet. There is a genuine concern by all members of this committee about airline safety in this country.

CHAIR: There was some dramatic downgrade of the incident.

Senator XENOPHON: That is right.

CHAIR: What was it from?

Senator XENOPHON: It went from being a safety issue identified as critical to being downgraded significantly. That is something that Senator Fawcett asked many questions about. There were issues about whether CASA and the ATSB colluded or not. That was raised. Can I remind the minister that the committee took such a serious view of this that it referred the evidence to the Federal Police for investigation into whether there was a breach of the TIA legislation.

Senator SINODINOS: I think we are in furious agreement.

Senator XENOPHON: I still do not know how the panel is going to do its job if it does not give privilege to people.

Senator SINODINOS: Having listened to all of this, we will go away and get advice on how we can handle this in a way that means that—

Senator XENOPHON: If you can.
However given that the former PM KRUDD couldn't get the AFP to properly investigate the PMC bureaucrats (see here)...

Access was sought to a copy of the referral letter sent by the Hon. Kevin Rudd MP to the AFP seeking an investigation into the unauthorised release of a video onto YouTube. (http://www.afp.gov.au/about-the-afp/information-publication-scheme/~/media/afp/pdf/ips-foi-documents/foi/disclosure-log/2013/6-2013.ashx)

"Dear Commissioner Negus

Re: Investigation of offenses associated with the theft and illegal transmission of a video recording

I write following my referral of possible criminal activities to you on 14 March 2012, my meeting with your senior officers on 29 October and your written response to my referral provided to me at that meeting. Copies of relevant records are attached.

In the first instance I wish to reemphasise to you that as an ordinary Australian citizen I take these offenses seriously. Also as the immediate past prime minister and foreign minister of Australia, I take these offenses seriously. They do not constitute a trivial matter.

As I noted in my referral of 14 March 2012, the stolen video recording in question was downloaded without legal authorisation, edited without my consent prior to being uploaded to YouTube, then released through a YouTube account for the explicit purpose of damaging my reputation nationally and internationally; and that notification of the existence of this YouTube video to the Australian media was first through an anonymous phone call."

...what chance have we got that the Feds will do a proper job of the Senate referral for investigation of the trough dwellers (bureaucrats) at Fort Fumble??:ugh:

Quote slightly adjusted for the Feds:"I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate AFP investigation of the factors involved." That said it would be interesting for the RRAT committee to request a copy of the AFP PROMIS file & case notes to scrutinise the thoroughness of the Feds investigation...:E

Kharon
3rd Jan 2014, 19:36
PNM # 195-Is there a public document that establishes a timeline for any subsequent examination of the AFP's actions?

Sarcs # 197 -That said it would be interesting for the RRAT committee to request a copy of the AFP PROMIS file & case notes to scrutinise the thoroughness of the Feds investigation.

Do you see one of the interesting omissions in the Truss WLR; the submission system aided and abetted by the narrow terms deny the 'review panel' the sort of forensic investigation needed. The 'hand off' approach isolates the Nick X request and leaves it begging Senate committee attention. Apart from estimates, the Pel Air committee don't have a platform to work from and Fawcett is hobbled by party lines. That leaves NX independent to carry on the work. As Sarcs points out, even a PM had trouble getting answers, this combined with the unpardonable delay from the miniscule in responding to the Pel Air recommendations, despite some serious questions being asked of Mrdak and McComic does not auger well. Transparency, truth and resolution are already running at diminishing rate of return on the industry investment.

While it's a very interesting exercise to review the Parliamentary Library List on aviation reviews, inquiry, and commissions for the past 20 years; it is an almost surreal experience to follow the post review results. The pattern is 'crystal' clear; the choreography elegant and the execution immaculate (plenty of practice-methinks). Basically there are five steps in this dance. Pel Air is passing effortlessly through step three onto step four; the Truss WLR has by-passed step one, has almost completed two and is lining up the transition to steps three and four; in short order. At step five it's all over, the music stops and the band goes home until next time.

Aye, it's a conundrum, about to become more complicated by the WA Senate elections. So even for our erstwhile, bi-partisan Senate inquiry, the clock is ticking. IMO the only show stopper is the amount of anger fuelled determination the Pel Air inquiry committee has remaining to break the never ending cycle; crash, review to nothing changed, at great expense.

Two_dogs
4th Jan 2014, 03:41
Direct link, here you go;

Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L02192)

I had started a thread on this document as I did not realise it had since been repealed/ceased. I then removed the thread as I thought it no longer relevant. Sorry.

I for one would like too see more on this, how/why can an amendment be Made 19 Dec 2013, Registered 24 Dec 2013 and then repealed 26 Dec 2013.

4dogs
4th Jan 2014, 10:00
Junior brother,

it goes like this:

48A Automatic repeal of amending and repealing instruments

(1) This section repeals a legislative instrument that is made on or after the commencement of this section and whose only legal effect is to amend or repeal one or more other legislative instruments (without making any application, saving or transitional provisions relating to the amendment or repeal).

Time of repeal

(2) The repeal of the instrument by this section happens on the day after the last occurrence of one of the following events:

(a) the commencement of the instrument or of the last of its provisions to commence;

(b) the registration of the instrument.

Effect of repeal

(3) The repeal of the instrument by this section does not affect any amendment or repeal made by the instrument. This does not limit the effect of section 7 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as it applies in relation to the repeal of the instrument by this section because of section 13 of this Act.

(4) The repeal of the instrument by this section does not prevent section 38 or 42 from applying to the instrument after the repeal. That application does not delay the repeal of the instrument by this section.

procedural only... :cool:

Stay Alive,

Sarcs
5th Jan 2014, 19:56
While we're waiting for the debate....:rolleyes:
PNM post #1686 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-85.html#post8247411): 1 - if the motion lapses without debate then the Instrument is disallowed and ceases to have the force of law;

2 - if the motion is debated and voted in, then the Instrument is disallowed and ceases to have the force of law; or

3 - if the motion is debated and voted out, then the Instrument continues to have the force of law.
....Kharon brings up an interesting point, post #1687 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-85.html#post8248315)...:confused: notice that the FAA, who can legitimately claim safety sovereignty, have shown the way (again) with their revised fatigue rules which have apparently managed to reach a most satisfactory conclusion. They probably have not satisfied everyone's wishes, but the interested parties have, in a democratic fashion, achieved a greatly improved regulation based on modern thinking. So Bravo the FAA. Meanwhile here at home – "round and around the garden" – seems an apt description and 25 years in not really a long wait in the life of a glacier; is it ? As of two days ago the US are now operating to an amended FAR 117: "PART 117 - Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements" (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-04/pdf/2011-33078.pdf#page=70)

And as "K" mentions besides one or two points of difference, the new rules have been generally well accepted, here's an example from ALPA: ALPA Supports Same Flight And Duty Rules For All Airline Pilots (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=edef138e-ba66-4aed-affc-7648233af887)

“ALPA applauds the FAA and DOT for their continued efforts to ensure that the U.S. airline industry remains the safest in the world. The new science-based flight- and duty-time rules are a significant victory for safety and the traveling public here in the United States because they represent a long-overdue overhaul of decades-old flight and duty regulations.

“Unfortunately, the regulations have one critical shortfall because they exclude cargo airline pilots. ALPA was fully engaged in the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Committee regarding pilot fatigue, and has long maintained that the new flight- and duty-time limits and minimum rest requirements must cover all airline pilots. It is clear from the science that all airline pilots experience fatigue in the same ways, regardless of whether they are transporting passengers or cargo. Cargo airline pilots fly the same aircraft types over the same routes, into and out of the same airports, as passenger airline pilots. This is why ALPA supports H.R. 182/S. 1692—the Safe Skies Act, which would require that cargo pilots be included in these regulations in order to increase safety for the public. We urge every U.S. senator and representative to support this important aviation safety legislation for all who rely on air transportation.”
Here in Oz Fort Fumble in their usual bombastic way rammed through into law Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) despite criticisms from similar industry groups to the US ALPA...:ugh:

AIPA: Safety risked by flawed aviation rules that would result in fatigued pilots landing planes after 20 hours at the controls (http://www.aipa.org.au/media-room/safety-risked-flawed-aviation-rules-would-result-fatigued-pilots-landing-planes-after-20)

“AIPA believes that a scientific review of the proposed limits is necessary, ensuring efficiency is balanced with flight safety through principles developed by thorough scientific analysis, not lobbying. The motion to disallow CAO 48.1 will allow all industry stakeholders to go back to the table with CASA and produce legislation that is more aligned to international best practice, which will provide an outcome that is significantly better for public safety.”

VIPA: New Regulations (http://www.vipa.asn.au/member/new-regulations)

"CASA has previously stated that the current CAO 48 is devoid of sound scientific principles to define the prescribed Flight and Duty limits cites this inadequacy to advocate for its new rule set. The new CAO 48 is supposed to be based on currently recognised and credible fatigue science. Sadly the new CAO 48.1 does not come close to satisfying the scientific principles. For example the scientific studies that ICAO relied upon to develop the SARP for FDP limits recognise that flight duty should not exceed 8 to 9 hours at the controls. The new rules routinely allow for this, which is no different to what we currently do.."

This FF total disconnect with industry concern was further highlighted by a speech made by the DAS at Clive's dinosaur park :E:Reforming civil aviation regulations - enhancing safety standards through new flight crew fatigue management rules (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101720)
The recent claims made by some sections of the industry appear to compare the standby requirements specified in the new CAO 48.1 with foreign regulators’ airport standby arrangements. However, these are two very different concepts, and comparing them is tendentious and misleading. Hmm...so while we wait and ponder the next political moves, on yet another reg debacle, it would appear the rest of the world has addressed the problem and are getting on with it...:=...TICK TOCK indeed!:ugh:

Kharon
6th Jan 2014, 20:09
While we are discussing CAO 48, disallowable instruments, motions and the like, I wonder if the WLR panel will have the nouse to look at other Disallowable Instruments (DI) which are or, have been 'rubber stamped' and passed through the system, unscathed.

There are 120 DI on the list at the moment; ranging from 'means of providing surface wind' to the 'number of cabin attendants', all manner of issues presented to the rubber stamp factory. Couple of troubling things;

That there is a need for so many exemptions must be one of the clearest signposts to a regulatory suite which has not kept pace with, or is incapable of supporting 'modern' operations. Prescriptive, complex and ruthlessly micro managed rule sets create the need for operational 'exemption'. Heaven only knows what the 'real' cost of this system is. A company wishing to stay 'legally safe' but operationally efficient needs to draft a proposal, this in all probability will involve operational and legal advice, time and money. Then the 'thing' has to go to the administrator and be processed through reception, recording, evaluation, drafting, legal and a final approval system, all fully documented. Then the 'thing' is off to parliament, through yet another expensive process, before the rubber stamp is used and the operator eventually receives a piece of very expensive paper granting an exemption against the 'rules', as writ.

No doubt the system is above board and the exemptions 'made' legal; but I wonder, when was the last external, independent audit of not only the system but some of the decisions. Some of the 'justification' for approval is mind bending, convoluted and abstruse, to say the least.

I've no objection to 'operations' having exemptions, or instruments, but would question the need for so many. Perhaps a WLR panel member could question why there is a need for so many and the real costs. When you start to add up the costs involved to produce a request for 'instrument', the cost of submission, the cost of process to get the 'thing' to parliament, the cost of parliamentary rubber stamping, all paid for by the travelling public (one way the other); you end up with some very scary numbers. Add this annual cost to the cost of regulatory reform, whichever way you look at it; the numbers are truly concerning especially when weighed against the progress made thus far.

Perhaps the WLR panel cost added to the cost of all previous parliamentary costs for inquiry should be tacked on at the end of a long column of figures which could then be used to define the absolute and abject failure of the great Australian regulatory reform program.

FAR or NZ CAR; pick one and lets be done with it. We could save a packet and send the visiting firemen home; for a rest, after their strenuous labour down-under, in the land of the long week end.

Selah -and/or Tick tock

Sarcs
6th Jan 2014, 22:11
In case you were wondering what in the world Kharon is talking about..:confused:..here is a link for the lists of disallowable instruments currently before the 44th Parliament: Disallowable List - Parliament (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/leginstruments/Disallowable_List)

And if I extract just one sitting day that instruments, related to the CAA 1988, have been introduced..here is what it looks like {Note: Have linked some of them to the COMLAW site, the one in red I find somewhat amusing..:E} Presented to the Senate on 12 November 2013
5 sitting days remaining for notice to disallow

Civil Aviation Act 1988—
Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 117) Regulation 2013—Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 222 [F2013L01539]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01539/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Subpart 21.J) Regulation 2013—Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 188 [F2013L01444]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01444/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Order 82.6 (Night vision goggles – helicopters) 2007—Exemption — initial NVG pilot flight training prerequisites—CASA EX87/13 [F2013L01488]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01488/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—
Approval and directions — operations without an approved digital flight data recorder system—CASA 190/13 [F2013L01763]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01763/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Order 40.3.0 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 2) [F2013L01712]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01712/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Order 100.28 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01711]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01711/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01330]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01330/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 2) [F2013L01486]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01486/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Order 104.0 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01746]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01746/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Order 108.56 Repeal Instrument 2013 [F2013L01331]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01331/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Direction — number of cabin attendants for Airbus A320 and Fokker F100 aircraft (Virgin Australia Regional Airlines)—CASA 132/13 [F2013L01278]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01278/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Direction — number of cabin attendants for Fokker F70 and Fokker F100 aircraft—CASA 164/13 [F2013L01489]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01489)
Direction — number of cabin attendants in Boeing 737-800 series aircraft, Qantas Airways Limited—CASA 158/13 [F2013L01491]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01491)
Direction — number of cabin attendants (National Jet Systems)—CASA 170/13 [F2013L01501]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01501)
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Sunstate Airlines)—CASA 133/13 [F2013L01280]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01280)
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Tiger Airways)—CASA 121/13 [F2013L01274]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01274)
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia Airlines)—CASA 87/13 [F2013L01215]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01215)
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia International Airlines)—CASA 88/13 [F2013L01213]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01213)
Direction — parallel runway operations at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport—CASA 192/13 [F2013L01671]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01671/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Directions under subregulation 235(2) relating to landing weight and landing distance required—
CASA 116/13 [F2013L01276]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01276/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
CASA 181/13 [F2013L01629]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01629/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
CASA 205/13 [F2013L01757]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01757/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
CASA 213/13 [F2013L01762]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01762/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (A330 and B737NG aircraft)—CASA 186/13 [F2013L01627]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01627)
Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (B737NG and B777-300ER aircraft)—CASA 187/13 [F2013L01626]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01626)
Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (B787-8 aircraft)—CASA 220/13 [F2013L01797]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01797)
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Exemption, permission and direction — helicopter search and rescue operations and training for such operations—CASA EX66/13 [F2013L01724]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01724/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Airworthiness Limitations—AD/B767/145 Amdt 2 [F2013L01698].
Amendment of instrument CASA 125/09 — Drug and alcohol testing by CASA under Subpart 99.C of CASR 1998—CASA 165/13 [F2013L01616]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01616/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Approval – means of compliance with Airworthiness Directive for Grob G 109 and G 109 B aircraft—A&ESB 12/3050 [F2013L01704]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01704/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Auto-Speedbrake Control System—AD/B767/178 Amdt 1 [F2013L01313].
Automatic Flight Control System—AD/A320/3 Amdt 1 [F2013L01691].
Cabin Altitude Warning Takeoff Briefing—AD/B737/346 Amdt 1 [F2013L01751].
Darwin Inspection and Testing Service Ultrasonic Inspection—AD/GENERAL/86 [F2013L01490]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01490/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Elevator Flutter Damper Shear Pins—AD/CL-600/36 Amdt 1 [F2013L01332]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01332/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Escape Slide Release Cable—AD/B737/42 Amdt 1 [F2013L01750].
Exemption – carriage of flight data recorder – Pel-Air Aviation—CASA EX80/13 [F2013L01393]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01393/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Exemption — CASR Part 99 DAMP requirements for CAR 30 or Part 145 organisations overseas—CASA EX95/13 [F2013L01675]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01675)
Exemption — certificate of release to service – foreign approved maintenance organisations—CASA EX74/13 [F2013L01378]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01378)
Exemption — from having training and checking organisation—CASA EX81/13 [F2013L01493]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01493/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)
Exemption — from holding an air traffic control licence—CASA EX108/13 [F2013L01754]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01754)
Exemption – from standard landing minima – Boeing 737 fail-passive aircraft – Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd—
CASA EX73/13 [F2013L01400]. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01400)
CASA EX86/13 [F2013L01496].
CASA EX114/13 [F2013L01882].
Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd—CASA EX103/13 [F2013L01771].
Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd—CASA EX115/13 [F2013L01883].
Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Vietnam Airlines—CASA EX99/13 [F2013L01688].
Exemption — instrument rating flight tests in a synthetic flight training device—CASA EX116/13 [F2013L01869].
Exemption of DAMP organisations for collection and screening of specimens—CASA EX112/13 [F2013L01806].
Exemption — recency requirements for night flying (Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd)—CASA EX90/13 [F2013L01628].
Exemption – recency requirements for night flying – Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd— CASA EX118/13 [F2013L01871].
Exemption — requirement to wear seat belt and safety harness—CASA EX 106/13 [F2013L01805].
Exemption — Sydney Jabiru Flying School solo flight training at Bankstown aerodrome—CASA EX111/13 [F2013L01877].
Exemption — take-off with residual traces of frost and ice—CASA EX70/13 [F2013L01203].
Exemption — temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace—CASA EX113/13 [F2013L01837].
Exemption — use of ADS-B in Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft LV-CSF—CASA EX96/13 [F2013L01662].
Exemption — Virgin Australia International Airlines from subregulation 217(2) of CAR 1988 and paragraph 3.3 of CAO 82.5 (cabin crew training)—CASA EX69/13 [F2013L01202].
Exemption — Virgin Australia International Airlines from subregulation 217(2) of CAR 1988 and paragraph 3.3 of CAO 82.5 (flight crew training)—CASA EX68/13 [F2013L01200].
Exhaust System Inspection – Heat Exchanger—AD/X-TS/1 Amdt 1 [F2013L01664].
Fatigue Critical Components – Retirement Lives—AD/TSA-600/38 Amdt 2 [F2013L01597].
Flightcrew Oxygen Masks—AD/B737/294 Amdt 2 [F2013L01697].
Fuel Injection Servo Plugs—AD/FSM/31 Amdt 3 [F2013L01792].
Fuel Probes—AD/A320/9 Amdt 1 [F2013L01690].
Fuel System Ventilation and Drainage Modification—AD/GA8/7 [F2013L01663].
Main Cabin Upper Door—AD/TSA-600/39 Amdt 3 [F2013L01791].
Main Rotor Mast and Trunnion – Retirement Index Number (RIN) Recount/Inspection—
AD/BELL 204/6 Amdt 13 [F2013L01470].
AD/BELL 205/1 Amdt 33 [F2013L01472].
Maintenance on warbird and historic and replica aircraft (WHR) — directions and licence condition—CASA 197/13 [F2013L01747].
Manual of Standards Part 139 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01756].
Nose Wheel Steering Control—
AD/A320/27 Amdt 1 [F2013L01692].
AD/A320/27 Amdt 2 [F2013L01835].
Oxygen System—AD/HS 125/161 Amdt 1 [F2013L01679].
Part 66 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01399].
Part 147 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01397].
Pitot Probe Hoses—AD/A320/24 Amdt 1 [F2013L01693].
Revocation of exemption — CASR Part 99 DAMP requirements for CAR 30 organisations overseas—CASA EX97/13 [F2013L01676].
Revocations of Airworthiness Directives—
CASA ADCX 012/13 [F2013L01333].
CASA ADCX 013/13 [F2013L01411].
CASA ADCX 014/13 [F2013L01494].
CASA ADCX 015/13 [F2013L01566].
CASA ADCX 016/13 [F2013L01596].
CASA ADCX 017/13 [F2013L01637].
CASA ADCX 018/13 [F2013L01700].
CASA ADCX 019/13 [F2013L01752].
CASA ADCX 020/13 [F2013L01828].
CASA ADCX 021/13 [F2013L01823].
CASA ADCX 022/13 [F2013L01902].
Take-Off Warning—AD/B737/18 Amdt 2 [F2013L01703]. {Note: If you are interested in some of the other individual instruments just copy and paste to search engine and click on the COMLAW link provided}

I know different political systems and all that..:rolleyes: but interestingly enough in the US recently the House Transportation Committee instigated an audit of the FAA:
Inspector General To Audit FAA Organizational Structure (http://www.aero-news.net/GetMoreFromANN.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=73e229df-12a6-4155-9e54-63274d78dd0c)

House Transportation Committee Requested The Probe

The DOT Inspector General plans to begin an audit of the FAA's organization structure this month at the request of the chairs of the House Transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee.




In a document posted on the Federal Register, over the past two decades, FAA has undergone several reorganizations and structural changes in an effort to improve its operation of the National Airspace System, such as the establishment of the Air Traffic Organization in 2000. The IG says the audit objectives are to:

Determine whether FAA reforms implemented since 1995 have resulted in improved air traffic operations, reduced Agency costs, and expedited delivery of new technologies
Compare the processes used by different countries to deliver air traffic services and implement new technologies.
FAA reauthorization legislation is scheduled to be before the committee later this month. LoBiondo said at a hearing December 12 that one of his top priorities was the implementation of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, and that organization changes at the agency may be necessary for that to be accomplished.
Question for those kosher with the Oz system: Would it not be possible for the WLB (Wet Lettuce Brigade) to enlist the help of the Senate RRAT committee to make a submission to the ANAO or OBPR (Office of Best Practice Regulation (http://ris.finance.gov.au/)) to audit/review the CAA DIs??:rolleyes:

The ANAO/OBPR in turn could enlist the expertise of the WLB, along with maybe some guidance from the PMC endorsed Best Bractice Regulation Handbook (http://www.dpmc.gov.au/deregulation/obpr/handbook/docs/bpr-handbook.pdf), pool their resources and before you knew it you'd be well on the way to a fully independent, transparent process of auditing the DI list...hmm food for thought perhaps??:ok:

ps All in the interest of the Governments Red Tape Reduction policy of course...:E

Kharon
7th Jan 2014, 18:40
Oh yes.

116/13 These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.

Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.

118/13 These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.

Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.

205/13 These directions apply to Boeing aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the En-route Landing Performance. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.

Boeing has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Boeing has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.

213/13 These directions apply to Boeing 787-8 aircraft operated by Jetstar Airways Pty Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the En-route Landing Performance. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.

Boeing has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Boeing has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.

I have only cherry picked the above from the Sarcs list because of their similarity and ease of reference. Here we have Tiger, Qantas and Jetstar all needing an 'instrument' approving operations, as writ. Now Airbus and Boeing did not wake up one morning and jointly decide to change the method of complying with the Australian CAO, make the changes by lunch time, work out the new data and have it published and distributed by afternoon tea, before retiring for the day to the pub, for a well earned pint or two. Did they now?

I'd risk a choccy frog and bet that the cast and crew at all the above air operators knew that changes were imminent and were all prepared, well in advance. Training, scheduling, TEM and etc. i.e. all facets analysed well in advance of change over day. I'd even hazard a further choccy frog that the CASA FOI were equally ahead of the game, being informed of and probably involved in the step by step process. Change was coming and everyone was prepared – except the regulator's rules.

The primary effect of this instrument is to allow use of a new method of determining that distance based on criteria provided by the aircraft manufacturer.

Why, oh why do we persist with this expensive, counterproductive approach when by simply accepting that the manufacturer and grown up regulators may just know a thing or two and adjust our regulation, once, in advance to accommodate the facts of life. Would that not save a world of time, effort, trouble and money?.

Perhaps the WLR panel, if they could manage it, over tea and cream buns, spare a second or two just to consider exactly how deep mud actually is. Yes minister, we may need a bit more than a teaspoon to dig our way out of the legislative mire.

Sarcs
7th Jan 2014, 21:52
Kharon: Perhaps the WLR panel, if they could manage it, over tea and cream buns, spare a second or two just to consider exactly how deep mud actually is. Yes minister, we may need a bit more than a teaspoon to dig our way out of the legislative mire. Surprise..surprise "K" for once the DAS and you actually agree on something...:D:D:E

He even gives the figure for exemption instruments as 1700, sheesh..:ugh:.. no wonder it is SOPs for the pollies to just rubber stamp these instruments straight through both chambers without a secondary glance..:=:=

See here from about 45 seconds...:rolleyes::

[YOUTUBE]CASA Director of Aviation Safety on Regulation Reform - YouTube
Warning: Bucket may be required on standby!:ok:

No Hoper
8th Jan 2014, 00:13
Well what he says makes sense to me

Frank Arouet
8th Jan 2014, 02:05
I would have thought that part of the definition already included as a prerequisite to VFR flight at night to have a discernible external visual horizon. (No more than 4/8ths of cloud and VFR conditions).


How much will this little junket cost. A one line addition to definitions perhaps but, irrespective of how many hours of instrument time is required by the NVFR pilot, the aircraft must be instrument equipped, the pilot must be similarly equipped, and rated on the instruments he/she wants to use if you want to fly in non-VFR conditions. Night VFR is not non-visual flight.

Kharon
8th Jan 2014, 03:31
Yes Sarcs, I noticed that: synchronisation lasted about 20 seconds; then I reached for the bucket. I keep wondering if our unfortunate man has a blind clue what the mice do – when the cat's away. Hell, he may even mean well – I mean it's possible –ain't it????. But the 'video' is a classic of spin delivery, start with an undeniable truth, embrace it, acknowledge it, show the pathway; then, having roped in the mugs, look all truthful and concerned and sneak in the 'whammy' - 'Industry may not cope with sudden change' (look concerned here). etc. etc.

Not able to cope? Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. Bring in the NZ rules, give industry six months to adjust the manuals another six months for the FOI to read them; then lead or follow, but do not, ever again get under the industry's feet.

Nearly everyone remotely famous has made a 'quote' relating to failure of delivery, failure of leadership, some have even made quotes about both.

"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else". - John Burroughs.

And, ass one good video deserves another - just for a laugh – Bollocks.

Kharon
8th Jan 2014, 20:10
Did you ever go to the theatre to see a pantomime and notice how the spotlight kept your attention focussed on the characters?, away from what was occurring in the dark areas out of the light. The stars in the spotlight of the WLR are the 'regulations' as they affect operational and engineering perspectives, rightly so. But hiding away in the dark corners there are other characters, equally important just not as obvious. I wonder if anyone is going to make a submission on these topics?

The Act; a couple of the wiser owls of my acquaintance reckon that many of today's problems are created by the Act. Seems as though the Act gives the authority almost a 007 license. I expect that most folk have brushed over the Act, seeking out the parts which affect what we do, but have neither the expertise or interest in dissecting the thing. But my owls say it's a must do item. Suggestions ?– anyone?

Avmed; as this mostly affects individual pilots, the practices and rules rarely get much of a mention. It is even unclear to me who runs the show, where their rules draw power from or even how the rules are made and by whom. But, there is a long list now of people who have been affected, the Colour Vision bun fight is finally drawing some attention from the right people (Hallelujah), but some of the other rulings are equally outrageous. The new blood sugar rules have specialist doctors rolling about the floor laughing, there's tales that cardiologists tell at dinner parties about gross ignorance. The Hempel imbroglio remains an embarrassing classic there's even rumoured to be a list of young fellahin who owned up to having more beers a week than Avmed reckon is salutary and are making regular visits to the pathologist. It's a strange little empire this one, mostly left undisturbed to blunder along without check or external audit. I forget his name now, but didn't one of the top medico's resign in high dudgeon, citing serious flaws and reckless rule making? That submission would probably be flicked by the Murky Machiavellian censor, long before it got to the old Kenwood fridge, posing as a security vault.

I'd risk a choccy frog and say no one has thought to shine a light into some of the darker corners. They probably could, but doubt the game is worth the candle. Time will tell.

Sarcs
8th Jan 2014, 23:21
Kharon: Avmed; as this mostly affects individual pilots, the practices and rules rarely get much of a mention. It is even unclear to me who runs the show, where their rules draw power from or even how the rules are made and by whom. But, there is a long list now of people who have been affected, the Colour Vision bun fight is finally drawing some attention from the right people (Hallelujah), but some of the other rulings are equally outrageous.
Ah yes the Avmed imbroglio..:rolleyes:..and the 3rd world bureaucratic approach of the subcontinent PMO, who is seemingly taking back the advancements of modern medicine to at least the 19th century.:ugh:

For the WLB to get a feel for this bizarre monstrosity of bureaucratic obfuscation and embuggerance, one only need visit the FF AAT records in recent years: CAsA AAT decisions (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=title;query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20 Authority;meta=%2Fau;mask_path=au%2Fcases%2Fcth%2FAATA;view= date;offset=0)

If they're game the WLB should also take a sampling of the more than 2000 page DAME Handbook (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi_f13_5348.pdf) ....{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??:confused:}

And while stepping through the Avmed minefield the WLB should enquire about this little outstanding project on Part 67:Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 - Medical -
Consultation history
Title Details Date Consultation updates in 2011 Project FS 11/39 - Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 (http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/projecthistory.asp?session=1744221561&pc=PC_100680&project=FS%2011/39) - Medical Project approved. 22 Sep 2011
While on the subject of FF stalled projects the WLB need to take a serious look at this list... Active projects (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_93089)
{Comment: It would appear that one of the main reasons for a lot of the stalled projects is because they are awaiting for a new reg to be written, approved or enacted} Either way you cut it the WLB have definitely got a serious bureaucratic onion to peel back..:{

Hmm...given the size of the onion (and the time constraints) perhaps the WLB should seriously consider taking up the generous offer of assistance from the Chair of the Senate RRAT committee...;)

Addendum to Kharon's post : I forget his name now, but didn't one of the top medico's resign in high dudgeon, citing serious flaws and reckless rule making?
It is kind of ancient history now and filed well back in the Shelfware Chronicles but is this what you were referring to "K" :confused:
From the ATsB Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011 (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/Aviation):

19 November 1996
Concerns expressed in the letter of resignation of the CASA Director of Aviation Medicine Dr Robert Liddell, caused the Minister to ask the Board to reconsider safety.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR152/96; Age, 27 November 1996
You are right though it did cause a massive stink at the time, perhaps best summarised in the following article: Air Turbulence - The Dogfight Over Safety In Australia (http://www.aerodrome.com.au/aerodrome-articles/1996/11/27/air-turbulence-the-dogfight-over-safety-in-australia/)
{Comment: You will also see that CVD guru Dr Arthur Pape:D features heavily in that article}

......"It was a well-orchestrated public resignation, with Dick Smith faxing the media a copy of Dr Liddell's letter to the director of air safety, Mr Leroy Keith. Dr Liddell's claims of low morale, the disempowerment of line management, the undermining of air safety surveillance and cuts in the budget to fund unbudgeted office refurbishments, are sufficient to make it a front-page story...."

It might be ancient history now but it certainly highlights that not much has changed in Sleepy Hollow...:ugh::ok:

dubbleyew eight
9th Jan 2014, 04:19
.{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??}

my doctor is a pretty sharp cookie so I asked him about it one visit.

"yeah I looked into it because you're not the only pilot I see, but I'm a real doctor, I'm not going to waste my time with all that crap"

a thumbs down from my doctor.

when you look back through history, post WW2 it was realised that the civilian pilots formed the ready reserve for the Air Force.
the decision was to have pilots pass the military medical so that they could be absorbed without further screening.
medicals never were about fitness for civilian flying.

thorn bird
9th Jan 2014, 09:41
Funny aint it..outsourcing!! everyones at it from the Govmint down. We've outsourced so much we might as well outsource the lot before we become slaves in our own country. I'm sure the Chinese would consider a few million a head for each of us and we all bugger off and leave them with it!!
CAsA is no different regarding outsourcing
Think about it, there is anyone who is part of CAsA, the rest are criminals they havnt caught yet.
This of course includes Australian doctors, who must be corrupt and incompetent in CAsA's eyes, because CAsA accepts nothing they say, which is why so many of them are declining to get involved in Aviation medicine, or are leaving it, largely because it just aint worth the B..ll..sh..t and as the active pilot population steadily decreases, because more and more pilots just give up and go do something where they can earn a living, move to an offshore licence, or decide its just too expensive to keep an Australian medical, there is just no return in it for a doctor, other than a whole lot of grief and liability.
CAsA have outsourced their medical department to the Kentucky Fried Chicken medical school offshore, because they cannot attract Australian doctors who are actually smart enough to recognise Bul.sh..t when they see it and avoid aviation like the plague.
About ten years ago I received a CAsA letter saying my medical was not going to be processed due to a heart problem, I was offshore at the time and had renewed my FAA medical at the same time. Around ten grands worth of tests later my specialist in frustration wrote to CAsA and suggested whoever thought I had a heart problem should go back to medical school.
How many guys in the last year were informed by CAsA they had diabetes?
Love to know how many, cost me around a grand to prove I wasnt.
I've heard of a few guys who have spent a fortune proving they were'nt alcoholics as well because they were honest in the questionaire.
Meantime I renew the FAA medical year in year out, no hassles, no cost other than the doctor, and surprise, surprise the FAA respects their doctors competentcy, because he issues the medical and thats it.

Kharon
9th Jan 2014, 20:11
Managed to have a quiet ale (or was it two) with P7. a.k.a. T.O.M. last evening; and, as you'd expect, the conversation turned to the Wet Lettuce Review. I mentioned 'medical matters', just in passing, mind you and there was a long sigh, a roll of the eyes then he says "skip it for tonight kid, there is not enough ale in the barrel to see us through that discussion". Despite my willingness to test theory, he declined further comment. But it did lead into a discussion of just how much ground the review must cover, if it's to do the job properly, rather than just look good.

Walking home I got to thinking about it all and there is a hellish tangle. TOM reckons most of the fix would come from a revised Act rather than the regulations, which makes some sense. And remembering Creampuffs words I finished up concerned that without involving the RAT Senate committee and their support crew, this already weak WLR is going to end up behind the proverbial 8 ball. I expect there are some reasons for shutting out the highly effective, bi-partisan RAT committee, not using their experience, horsepower, administrative and security know how; but be buggered if I can see it.

The words 'fatally flawed' seem to be being used rather a lot lately; Shirley it would ease the legal burden, expedite the process and provide a much better result if the Senate crew became involved, that would, at the very least provide the security and protection most serious submissions will require. I know TOM is concerned, "Arr well, you pays your money and takes your chances" quips he, in a truly dreadful attempt at a pirate's voice.

And so it was that a quiet ale developed into a thinking headache.

Creampuff -"Politics has almost nothing to do with what’s right or wrong. It’s almost entirely about what’s expedient. Come the day that the government desperately wants something passed through the Senate, and all the non-major party aligned Senators say: “Not until substantive actions have been finalised to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry in Aviation Accident Investigation”, that’s when something substantive will happen. Until that day, forget the government. If the government cared about the recommendations, it would already have done something substantive about them." Damn straight.

Old Akro
9th Jan 2014, 20:55
Kharon

Funny thing is that over a quiet Latte yesterday morning we were discussing the same things.

I got my new medical 2 days ago. It was submitted on Dec 10. There were no problems, there has been no explanation about why it has taken so long. But it took me numerous phonecalls and emails to get it. Each time I spoke with pleasant people who apologised and made a new promise to mail it. Each time the promise was broken. The next phonecall would be pleasant to a nice person who had not the faintest scrap of concern that a colleague had not honoured an undertaking. Nor was there the slightest hint of concern that not having a class 1 medical might be an inconvenience to a CPL.

I don't think legislation has much to do with people honouring commitments. The trouble is that there is a culture in CASA that pilots just don't matter.

It didn't used to be like this. I think its 99% about the people & culture and people & culture problems are 99% about the guys at the top.

One of my Latte companions yesterday says he possesses a power-point presentation from a recent DAME conference. It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists. Doesn't that capture the issue right there? Non medical personnel or (at best) non practising medically trained personnel get to exercise discretion over highly trained specialist practitioners.

Some years ago I had the misfortune to be the first Australian pilot put on a particular drug. In the US this drug is listed in the FAA handbook as safe with no known side effects and not requiring FAA notification. In Australia this wasn't good enough for CASA. Nor was the opinion of my specialist (a world leader who regularly presents at overseas conferences). It wasn't until my specialist called in a favour from a colleague at the Mayo clinic that CASA became satisfied.

These problems don't require legislation to fix them. It just requires people with integrity and backbone in the upper levels of CASA.

thorn bird
10th Jan 2014, 03:36
"It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists."

Of course they dont Akro, didnt you know that being experts in all things aviation they are also experts in all things medical, and Australian doctors are all incompetent miscreants, only graduates from the Kentucky Fried Chicken medical school opinions will be accepted.

Sarcs
10th Jan 2014, 06:29
Old Akro: (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-11.html#post8255929) I don't think legislation has much to do with people honouring commitments. The trouble is that there is a culture in CASA that pilots just don't matter.

It didn't used to be like this. I think its 99% about the people & culture and people & culture problems are 99% about the guys at the top.
&..
These problems don't require legislation to fix them. It just requires people with integrity and backbone in the upper levels of CASA.

Nail on head Akro :D...it is all about the culture, slay the head first, tackle the culture, several subcultures and then your halfway to fixing the problem...:=

Supposedly the bureaucrats are meant to be servants of the people, only ever acting in the national & public interest . These interests are meant to be conveyed and overseen by our elected representatives in parliament through government policy and then subsequently through legislation.

Fort Fumble's remit of in the public interest also includes public safety (i.e. aviation safety)and that iswhere the difference between theory & reality manifests itself and the lines become blurred...:ugh:

The US bureaucrats are still beholden to the public interest but under the US constitution the public interest is clearly defined and made sacrosanct by their Bill of Rights, theUS crats are in no doubt that they are indeed servants of the people...:D

Ok back to the topics at hand, namely Avmed and to a certain degree the FRMS (CAO 48.1) debate....

The US at the moment also have FRMS & Avmed issues that are currently being debated across the political, public and industry spectrum. Recently Avweb, a US based aviation website which has a readership of close to half a million per month, put out the following article Aviation Gets a Congressional Star Turn (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Aviation-Gets-a-Congressional-Star-Turn-221119-1.html) (my bold):
If you were paying attention to the news last week, you may have noticed that the otherwise chronically broken Congress actually proposed a bi-partisan budget package. Now let’s not delude ourselves into thinking strains of Kumbaya will soon be pealing from the Capitol and the members will be caroling on Pennsylvania Avenue, but this little outbreak of cooperation may have positive consequences for aviation. {boy that sounds familiar but alas we are only talking one house not two}

Specifically and without undue prodding, Congress got busy pushing back on two critical issues, the FAA’s plan to require sleep apnea diagnosis for medical certification and the very idea that the Third Class medical requirement is still viable. It’s not unusual for Congress to dip deeply into the affairs of government agencies; that’s what they do, after all. But I can’t recall a confluence of Congressional involvement in two important aviation issues occurring so quickly. {unlike the snail's pace of RRP}

First, the proposed sleep apnea diagnosis. I’m surprised that FAA air surgeon Fred Tilton stumbled into this mess. Mid-level agency executives are usually a lot smarter about what’s going to stir up the masses enough to invoke the wrath of Congress {here the midlevel crats thumb their nose at the pollies} . They like to avoid that sort of thing. Yet, by administrative fiat, Tilton decreed in early November that all pilots over a body mass index of 40 would have to be tested for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and that eventually, the agency wants to extend that to lower BMIs. Here’s Tilton’s announcement. (PDF (http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/ame/fasmb/media/201304.pdf)) It’s breathtaking in its potential scope, cost to airmen and utter lack of supporting data demonstrating how aviation safety will be improved or even anything showing that OSA is a threat to aviation safety. Earlier this month, the House introduced a bill to require the FAA to follow standard rulemaking procedures for this proposed new requirement.

What stuns me is that Tilton didn’t have his ducks in a row on this, attaching links to convincingly show how OSA is causal in aviation accidents to the extent that it’s worth the enormous expense he is proposing to address this issue. Could it be there are no ducks to line up? My guess is the convincing data doesn’t exist. Yes, the NTSB has opined (PDF (https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/speeches/rosekind/Rosekind_130416.pdf)) on this subject, but largely in the context of fatigue in general, with apnea as but one factor. In other words, Tilton may be proposing an expensive fishing trip, to be paid by pilots seeking medicals.

If you break through the crust of all the coverage on sleep apnea, you soon see that it has become the condition du jour, the suddenly discovered silent killer of the masses. How could civilization have endured so long with the scourge of sleep apnea? {love it!} An entire industry to treat it has emerged and doctors are being shown how they can make lots of money in the burgeoning field of “sleep medicine.” In this story (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/16/145182935/the-sleep-apnea-business-is-booming-and-insurers-arent-happy), NPR reported that Medicare payments for sleep testing increased nearly four fold between 2001 and 2009, from $62 million to $235 million.

According to the report, a company called Aviisha specializes in sleep testing and lures physicians with a picture of a doctor with a stack of cash in his lab coat pocket. Not to say the sleep medicine business is entirely a racket, but you can see the potential for abuse. I suspect Tilton’s proposal will be seen as playing into this. If Congress forces rulemaking, perhaps we’ll get a look at what data is supposed to support how OSA treatment will materially improve aviation safety.

Of course, if there weren’t a requirement for medicals, expensive OSA treatments wouldn’t be a requirement, either. And that’s the idea behind a bill introduced last week by Rep. Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican who’s also a pilot. The bill would expand the use of the driver’s license medical certification to allow pilots to fly aircraft up to 6000 pounds, VFR in non-commercial operations. It doesn’t eliminate the Third Class, but rather reduces the scope of operations where it's required. If passed, it’s a huge step forward, but there’s one thing about it I don’t like: it doesn’t allow IFR operations. This makes no sense to me, for instrument skills and operations have always been seen as a means of improving safety. It’s counter-logical to say that it’s medically stressful or that it should require a higher degree of medical screening. My guess is it’s thrown into the bill as a bone and I’m not really complaining. We have to start somewhere on eliminating the Third Class and this is a positive development.

But it’s not without negatives. While I don’t think the elimination or curtailment of the Third Class will kill the light sport industry, it will put a dent in it, especially for some manufacturers. Many LSA buyers are older pilots who have the wherewithal to pay cash for $130,000 airplanes. Some are doing that because they’re selling their Bonanzas or Skyhawks out of medical-loss fear. They see LSAs as lifeboats to extend their flying career. If fear of medical loss no longer propels them, light sport will lose some sales. So be it. It’s unreasonable to expect light sport to sustain on the back of a medical requirement that has long since outlived its usefulness, if it was ever useful. {love it!}

How these two issues play out will be interesting to watch and will likely be another case study in how bureaucracies protect their castles (troughs!} by maneuvering around Congress. It’s always amusing—or maybe infuriating—to attend public meetings where FAA mid-level or even administrator-level executives talk the talk about supporting GA and removing regulatory barriers. Yet here are two examples where they are doing just the opposite. Elimination of the Third Class medical won’t instantly stimulate GA growth, but it will surely reduce the erosion of the pilot population, which is the next best thing. Tilton’s sleep apnea proposal is just bizarre.I have little doubt that many pilots on the verge of bailing from GA will be encouraged to do just that when confronted with a requirement for $3000 worth of OSA testing and then living with a CPAP machine. Personally, I’d rather take up crack smoking than look and sound like Darth Vader when getting ready for bed. But that’s just me. Either way, it ought to be my choice, not the FAA’s.:ok:

Hopefully for us here in Oz the yanks do get these matters sorted (before they lob as issues here), otherwise the basket case that is our aviation safety administrators will have us all smoking crack before long...:E

If you want to see the effect of Paul Bertorelli's article on the US IOS membership, you only need refer to some of the many excellent comments that followed...gotta love the yank culture of Loud & Boisterous, not afraid to speak up :ok:. Sure beats this secret squirrel cr#p with the WLR fix...:yuk::yuk:

Addendum:

On our Avmed hot topic of controversy i.e. Dr Pape & CVD, the late Laurence Guzman QC letter of interest: More ancient history...#65 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-4.html#post8256146)

Kharon
10th Jan 2014, 19:52
About the only thing with Old Akro's post a reasonable man could disagree with is the latte`.

OA# 220 - One of my Latte companions yesterday says he possesses a power-point presentation from a recent DAME conference. It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists. Doesn't that capture the issue right there? Non medical personnel or (at best) non practising medically trained personnel get to exercise discretion over highly trained specialist practitioners.

If you have been following the -'Empire Strikes Back' (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-4.html#post8256146) thread-, you can see that while the focus is on one main issue, there are other splinters on the dunny seat, to catch the unwary. I hope someone is contemplating a submission to the WLR on matters medical. Whilst 'a-beer-ing' with TOM, I did manage to pry out some information; seems there is a substantial pile of data, but all very confidential and private. I wondered if the 'power point' mentioned above could be a starting point for proceedings; alas, No is the definitive answer. The WLR 'fatal flaw' raises it's ugly head – again – without parliamentary privilege and the facility to provide 'in-camera' testimony, it will be nigh well impossible to provide any form of evidence which relates to 'Doctor-Patient' confidentiality. It's said that the DAME all know there are huge problems, all hate and denigrate the system but; why rock the boat?, to achieve 'sod all'.

OA# 220 -These problems don't require legislation to fix them. It just requires people with integrity and backbone in the upper levels of CASA.

The attitude and the responsibility for that attitude stems from the top; it's not only me who's surprised that experienced, intelligent, skilled, 'professional', bureaucrats like Mrdak and Hawke allow the situation to continue. They must know that there are other competent 'reform' oriented, acceptable folk out there. To persist with the current 'top layer' (and it's catamites) is fraught with peril, unless of course they require a donkey on which to pin a tail. Someone has to carry the can for the existing mess. Pel Air alone should have forced men of good conscience to act for the common good etc. Servants of the people and all that.

The evidence from the Pel Air affair inquiry is a very public insight into a small part of what ails this industry, who is responsible and why. Another inquiry into an event like Canely Vale will produce an international and domestic disgrace, that not even Gibson could spin his way out of.

Why can't get any form of miniscule response to Pel Air ?– they know the problem, they have a solution, they have the tools, they have the spare parts: so why no action? Even if it's cynical, the simple protection of their own rice bowls. Before it's too late.

Let us go in together,
And still your fingers on your lips, I pray.
The time is out of joint. O cursèd spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!
Nay, come, let’s go together. (Hamlet 1:5).

Tick tock, the corporate clock.

mightyauster
11th Jan 2014, 15:09
Well, compared with all the medical BS we are inflicted with in this country, this is where the US is headed...
Text - H.R.3708 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/3708/text)

Frank Arouet
11th Jan 2014, 22:10
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Apply now for CASA sponsorship (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101880)


Perhaps the Ill's of Society can get a seat at the trough. Appears you only have to have an interest in aviation safety.


The problem is, that organization's accepting cash or in-kind benefits become "compliant" and subservient to Rule "catch 22" "He who pays the piper calls the tune".


I'm in! I wonder if they'll fund a few thousand IOS Tee shirts?

dubbleyew eight
11th Jan 2014, 23:30
mightyauster dont hide the details...

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue or revise medical certification regulations
to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a
covered aircraft without regard to any medical certification or proof
of health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law if--
(1) the individual possesses a valid State driver's license
and complies with any medical requirement associated with that
license;
(2) the individual is transporting not more than 5
passengers;
(3) the individual is operating under visual flight rules;
and
(4) the relevant flight, including each portion thereof, is
not carried out--
(A) for compensation, including that no passenger
or property on the flight is being carried for
compensation;
(B) at an altitude that is more than 14,000 feet
above mean sea level;
(C) outside the United States, unless authorized by
the country in which the flight is conducted; or
(D) at a speed exceeding 250 knots.
(b) Covered Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered
aircraft'' means an aircraft that--
(1) is not authorized under Federal law to carry more than
6 occupants; and
(2) has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more
than 6000 pounds.


that is about as clear a direction as you could wish for. now lets see them weasel out of it.
the ex-RAAF of course probably dont understand it at all.

upintotheair that link has died, sadly.

Vag277
11th Jan 2014, 23:41
The USA has caught up with Australia. Introduced here 2 years ago!

dubbleyew eight
11th Jan 2014, 23:49
bullshit vag277. the australian stuff is only for RAA exemptions. what about us with ICAO licences?

Frank Arouet
12th Jan 2014, 01:07
Cacktus.
PAIN comes also to mind and I concur with your thoughts. It makes one wonder about the validity of some of the "expert's" sitting on the sidelines of Minister Truss' review. Isn't one from AOPAA? The same organization that gave us strict liability and the ASIC and became promoters of CASA Roadshows. I like the cop out weasel words like.. "strong focus on "POSITIVE" promotion and "reciprocal benefits to CASA".


COPIED BELOW IS THE TEXT;


"Aviation organisations promoting safety are being called on to apply for sponsorship from CASA.

Applications under the current round of sponsorship, which can be financial or in-kind, can be made from 13 January 2014 until 14 February 2014.

CASA offers sponsorship for activities such as conferences, workshops, seminars, educational programs and publications that promote Australia’s civil aviation safety capabilities, skills and services.

CASA looks to align sponsorship with current safety promotion activities and priorities. These include ageing aircraft safety, sports and recreational safety, promoting new safety rules and helicopter operations in remote and regional areas.

Applications for sponsorship of activities outside of these priorities will be considered if there is a strong safety focus, known risk factors are addressed and the activities lead to improved aviation safety.

CASA is unlikely to sponsor an activity if there is not a strong focus on positively promoting safety in Australia’s aviation community.

Organisations wishing to apply for sponsorship need to fill in a form which is available on CASA’s web site.

This form asks for a description of the event or activity, the safety messages to be conveyed, the expected number of participants or people impacted, the amount of money or in-kind contribution sought and the reciprocal benefits to CASA."

Find out more and apply for sponsorship (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101649).


Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: 0419 296 446
Email: [email protected]
Ref: MR0114

Kharon
12th Jan 2014, 02:24
I will, in due course get this research organised for the "Empire Strikes Back" thread; but seeing as medical issues are attracting some belated attention; and, are pertinent to any form 'regulatory' look see; and, affect almost everyone – thought I'd post it here, as a lead to some of the more contentious issues surrounding Avmed v Aircrew. Mind you, the WLR is too small a blade to carve up this turkey – please, let's bring in the Senate crew, open the whole mess up and once and for all time, clear out this unholy mess long hidden away from public view.

Been looking back at some of the AAT medical cases, there is a very definite pattern which emerges from some of the highly 'combative', medically contentious cases. The most curious part of the pattern is the extraordinary lengths to which the Avmed puppets will go to in support of seemingly preordained, micro management edicts, from 'above'.

"I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved."...

The juxtaposition and the high risk element for Avmed is seen in the CASA submission on Hempel; where some interesting legal tap dancing isolates the 'management' from Avmed thrill seekers.

Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.

This preface and the following Introduction, explains the way in which the policy and processes set out in this manual are to be used by all CASA’s personnel when making decisions in the performance of their functions, the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their duties. It also explains the processes to be followed if it appears that a departure from policy is necessary or appropriate.

There are some interesting by plays and side bars, notably where Avmed is confronted by real 'expert' testimony. the response is a long winded 'statistical' argument, which proves little; leaving the empirical expert testimony remaining – untouched and undisturbed.

OA# 220 - One of my Latte companions yesterday says he possesses a power-point presentation from a recent DAME conference. It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists. Doesn't that capture the issue right there? Non medical personnel or (at best) non practising medically trained personnel get to exercise discretion over highly trained specialist practitioners.

Another point of interest are the 'play the man' tactics used, and it's easy pickings. Any pilot medical condition is easily isolated as 'individual', and may, with some impunity be viewed on a 'case by case' basis. Each CVR pilot for example must negotiate terms and by default becomes the target; can we not have a clearly defined 'blanket' rule to cover them all in one fell swoop. As any medical condition does not in any legal sense affect the operator, this further isolates the individual (putting company and union assistance to one side). This takes almost every medical argument to a 'one-on-one' bun-fight, where a preordained, subjective outcome may be argued by the experts from both teams. Bloggs is on his (and or her) own, left to face down 'the authority' without comparable resources. The pilot left to slug it out in the AAT (bad move) or court. Both expensive options, with no guarantee of outcome unless Avmed can be trapped, in clear breach or in another monumental, statistical bluff. No Joyce, the rose coloured glasses will not assist; not this time.

Rummaging about in three past and one pending case (put you to sleep stuff; but the devil does reside in the details) where clear, expert evidence as demanded by Avmed has been waived away, subjectively dismissed and/or ignored as pleases, despite outraged howls of protest. It's passing strange that 'expert medical' testimony is heard by 'legal experts', who can only, with the best will in the world, rule on the law and perhaps, on how the 'evidence' was obtained, how it was translated, by whom and to what ultimate purpose. All the fun of the legal fair – right there.

So, what then can our CVD colleagues expect in light of history, not much is the short answer. The 'official' position is to try and knock out opposing expert testimony. I still can't believe that Dr. Arthur Pape has been given so much grief, allegedly over one, important post here on Pprune (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html#post8156628). Blow me down what's next ?, threaten the applicant; or, find a comma or better yet a big juicy full stop out of place somewhere, somehow. Whoever predetermines what's going to happen and to whom, should be tarred, feathered and run out of Dodge on a rail.

Perhaps the WLR crew can sort it all out, save a world's worth of trouble and money. Just tell Avmed to down size, get real, get out of court, develop or copy some reasonable rules, administer those rules in a timely manner, stop buggering everybody about and let the DAME do their job and issue the certificates. Where is the problem ?- We know children, don't we?

Not done with subject research yet, perhaps CASA will sponsor the research. Sane medical rules for all (and keep fit classes and yoga and herbal tea) Too many details and head scratchin' for a sleepy Sunday arvo; time for tea and perhaps a cheese scone, if my luck holds.

CJ – The river is slow, but the houseboat is patient. Toot toot. (Big smile icon).

Sarcs
12th Jan 2014, 03:09
:D

Kharon: Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.

This preface and the following Introduction, explains the way in which the policy and processes set out in this manual are to be used by all CASA’s personnel when making decisions in the performance of their functions, the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their duties. It also explains the processes to be followed if it appears that a departure from policy is necessary or appropriate.
Ah yes the the not entirely legally sanctioned black ops loophole that can be found in the Foreword of the more important FF COMs/SOPs.:hmm:

Yes indeed Kharon there are some interesting Punch and Judy side shows in the Avmed world that are definitely worth expending some grey matter energy on, the conundrum will leave many scratching their wooden heads, their expandable noses and of course their donkey ears....:E
Another point of interest are the 'play the man' tactics used, and it's easy pickings. Any pilot medical condition is easily isolated as 'individual', and may, with some impunity be viewed on a 'case by case' basis.
&

This takes almost every medical argument to a 'one-on-one' bun-fight, where a preordained, subjective outcome may be argued. Bloggs is on his (and or her) own, left to face down 'the authority' without comparable resources. Or in other words as a wise old Coroner :D once said ..."ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached.."

The one truly notable exception to this FF Avmed modus operandi is of course the Hempel case, which left most of us scratching our wooden heads at about post #673 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/487144-barry-hempel-inquest-34.html#post8097216) of the Barry Hempel Inquest thread...:ugh:

As chance would have it there was a parallel but diametrically opposing similar case that involved most of the same players involved in the Hempel Inquest:cool::Hazelton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 693 (10 September 2010) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/693.html)

From paragraph 75 through to paragraph 133 we get the FF PMO..."very long winded 'statistical' argument, which proves little"...however IMO the following quote is significant in the context of the Dr B H McPherson (Deputy President) final decision:130. He was asked by the Deputy President about his use of the term "likelihood". He affirmed that he distinguished between a possibility and a likelihood. He explained that what he meant by "likely" is not necessarily what he meant by "likelihood"; he would choose "likely" for "a real, substantial risk", but he would not necessarily be meaning "likelihood". By likelihood, he was referring to the concept of the possibility, or chance, that an event will occur. He did not consider the extent of the brain damage or injury, in working out whether something was likely or not.

131. Mr Harvey also asked him about the "1% Rule", and if the International Civil Aviation Organisation supports the application of this in aeromedical decision making. He answered that the Organisation, which represents 189 nations, has avoided doing this, although some jurisdictions, such as Europe and Canada, are making attempts to quantify risk numbers.

132. When cross-examined, he said that, for a commercial pilot seeking certification, he would be "looking at" an acceptable absolute risk in the range of 2‑2.5%. However, he had not yet discussed in his evidence how he had made the decision about Mr Hazelton's absolute risk of epilepsy.

133. Although Dr Drane told us that Dr Navāthé had been directly involved in making the decision about Mr Hazelton, we heard no evidence from him concerning his assessment of Mr Hazelton's case.
Now the 1% rule is perhaps best described in paragraphs 359-367 in statements made by another common player in these Avmed shennanigans Dr Rob Liddell:Dr Robert William Liddell, Medical Practitioner

359. Dr Liddell has practised medicine for nearly 40 years, is an airline pilot, and a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner. His aviation career began with the Western Australian section of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, of which he became Medical Director, and later President; and he currently is a Board member. After six years as company Doctor to the British airline Dan Air, during which he flew as a pilot more than 2400 hours on Boeing 727 aircraft, he returned in 1988 to Australia to be CASA Director of Aviation Medicine for the next eight years. He is an Academician of the International Academy of Aerospace Medicine, and was a former President of the Aviation Medicine Society. He has prepared two statements.
360. In his first statement he has briefly reviewed some of his initiatives in aviation medicine.
361. His second statement has addressed that of Mr Macmillan, and he has taken Mr Macmillan's three main points.
362. First, Dr Liddell stated that, because modern aircraft are highly automated, although they are designed to be operated by two pilots, it has been demonstrated many times that one pilot can safely operate the aircraft if the other is incapacitated.
363. Second, with regard to pilot incapacity degrading safety, Dr Liddell provided information about the research conducted in 1984 by Dr Chapman of British Caledonian Airways. With the company's airline pilots in the company's jet aircraft simulator, he conducted 1300 exercises using two sudden incapacitation protocols, obvious, and subtle, of the handling pilot at a critical stage of flight. He had shown that the risk of losing the aircraft in these circumstances was 0.2%.
364. Subsequently the International Civil Aviation Authority accepted the concept of a medical certification restricted to the pilot operating "as or with co-pilot". Taking the level of the statistical risk target for safety as an observed airline accident rate at 1 per one million flight hours, the level of risk incapacitation for a pilot in a two crew aircraft has been accepted at 1 per cent per year or less. Dr Liddell stated:
This has been rigorously tested since that time and worldwide licensing authorities have not found reason to change this risk level.... There have been no accidents as a result of incapacitation of a person having this restriction since its inception 25 years ago.
365. Mr Macmillan's third man point referred to a pilot's in-flight incapacitation from an epileptic seizure. Dr Liddell stated that the greater concern has been with subtle incapacitation, such as a stroke, or partial seizure, but these are readily dealt with on the flight deck when recognised by the other pilot. As for the more severe grand mal epileptic fit, although physically intimidating, he remarked:
The shaking is usually of low amplitude almost like a tremor... [unlikely] to either disconnect the auto pilot or result in interference with the controls".
366. Dr Liddell observed that Mr Macmillan would not have been "privy" to the "enormous amount of research and statistical work that went into the International Civil Aviation Authority supporting a restricted medical certificate in the 1980s".
367. Dr Liddell was not called to give evidence at the hearing."Unfortunately, like all old toys, once a puppet passes its use by date inevitably it is not very long before the strings are cut and the discarded toy is sacrificed on the 'bonfire of the vanities'! "

Maybe Dr Pinnochio has passed his use by date :confused:; his nose has grown just a little too long, the paint is fading & chipped, the strings are loose and those bloody ears...:rolleyes:

Probably already considered..:confused:..but seriously (for a Sundy without any cricket..:{) maybe the CVD boys'n'gals should seriously consider enlisting the help of some of the Hazo experts and refer to the 1% rule??:ok:

Vag277
12th Jan 2014, 05:30
Oh dear! Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. Search the CASA website for Drivers Licence Medical. No one has an ICAO licence. they do not issue licences.

mightyauster
12th Jan 2014, 06:45
Vag277, have you bothered reading any of the CASA rules or the proposed rule in the US? Or do you have difficulty with comprehension?
Here are the current CASA Driver's Medical Rules:
Recreational pilot medical restrictions

Medical Restrictions

Getting a Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) requires that:


the individual meets the Australian Fitness to Drive unconditional private drivers requirements; and
the individual does not have any of the disqualifying conditions (HTTP://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101027).

If you have any of the disqualifying conditions you are not able to hold a Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) but you have the option to apply for a Class 2 medical certificate via a DAME.

Operational restrictions

The conditions of the exemption also impose restrictions on the flight rules that may be used by exempted pilots, on the aircraft that may be used, on the airspace that may be used, on the carriage of passengers and on the kind of flight that may be engaged in.
Restriction on aircraft

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must only operate single engine, piston powered aircraft (fixed wing or helicopter) with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 1500kg or less.
Restriction on flight rules

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must operate only by day and under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Night VFR and IFR flight is not permitted.
Restriction on use of airspace

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft as pilot in command in any airspace above 10 000 ft AMSL (above mean sea level).
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.
Restriction on carriage of passengers

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft with more than 1 passenger on board, and that 1 passenger (if carried) must be a qualifying passenger. This is a defined term meaning a passenger who, before boarding an aircraft has been told by the eligible person that he or she holds a current driver licence medical certificate (aviation) that is of a lower medical standard than a class 1 or class 2 medical certificate normally required but that he or she is acting under a CASA exemption and which imposes conditions, all of which are and will be complied with for the flight.
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.
Restriction on acrobatic flight

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft in acrobatic flight.
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed and acrobatic flight-endorsed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate, and the eligible person’s licence is also endorsed for acrobatic flight.
Any person thinking of applying to operate under the recreational pilot medical should ensure they have read and understood the complete explanatory statement.


Compared to the proposal in the US:

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue or revise medical certification regulations
to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a
covered aircraft without regard to any medical certification or proof
of health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law if--
(1) the individual possesses a valid State driver's license
and complies with any medical requirement associated with that
license;
(2) the individual is transporting not more than 5
passengers;
(3) the individual is operating under visual flight rules;
and
(4) the relevant flight, including each portion thereof, is
not carried out--
(A) for compensation, including that no passenger
or property on the flight is being carried for
compensation;
(B) at an altitude that is more than 14,000 feet
above mean sea level;
(C) outside the United States, unless authorized by
the country in which the flight is conducted; or
(D) at a speed exceeding 250 knots.
(b) Covered Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered
aircraft'' means an aircraft that--
(1) is not authorized under Federal law to carry more than
6 occupants; and
(2) has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more
than 6000 pounds (2721 kg).

The US proposal would make most GA single engine aircraft eligible. It is essentially the next step from the current Driver's Medical.

Frank Arouet
12th Jan 2014, 07:09
Another vagabond appears, (and from Canberra of all places). I thought it was a well researched, accurate, topical and informative "rant". For a brief moment after reading the Fag277 reply I thought I could get an endorsement on an A380 on a DL medical in the interests of aviation safety.


BTW, nobody in Australia has a license, only a "privilege" to exercise a right to operate with something called a license, that is "granted" and that, can be taken away if someone doesn't like your aftershave or you have been caught mucking around with his boyfriend.

Creampuff
12th Jan 2014, 07:58
mightyauster

In Australia, who has authority to determine whether an individual has any one of the (very long list of) ‘disqualifying conditions’?

Is there an equivalent list with equivalent consequences in the USA?

mightyauster
12th Jan 2014, 11:43
Creamie, I am presuming it is your GP who determines if "you have one of the disqualifying conditions". In practice (I haven't tried it yet), it would be interesting to see how many GPs would actually be prepared to "sign on the dotted line" if you requested a "drivers license medical certificate - aviation".
From the CASA website...
Medical examination

You will need a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) confirming your fitness to fly, issued in accordance with the conditions in Instrument CASA EX 68/12. When applying for this medical, you must tell the doctor of any condition that may adversely affect your ability to fly safely. Examples include but are not limited to diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions, stroke, eye problems (such as cataracts), psychiatric disorders, blackouts or fainting.

The certificate issued by a medical practitioner uses the uniform Australian private motor vehicle unconditional driving licence medical standards contained in the Austroads Inc. publication Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers, but modified by additional CASA-designed medical standards. This type of medical examination can be undertaken by any general practitioner and is similar in form to the Austroads Inc. driver licence medical examination.




It's interesting to note the length of list of disqualifying conditions for normal class 1 to 3 medical in the USA....


Unless otherwise directed by the FAA, the Examiner must deny or defer if the applicant has a history of: (1) Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medication; (2) Angina pectoris; (3) Coronary heart disease that has been treated or, if untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant; (4) Myocardial infarction; (5) Cardiac valve replacement; (6) Permanent cardiac pacemaker; (7) Heart replacement; (8) Psychosis; (9) Bipolar disorder; (10) Personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts; (11) Substance dependence; (12) Substance abuse; (13) Epilepsy; (14) Disturbance of consciousness and without satisfactory explanation of cause, and (15) Transient loss of control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory explanation of cause.

dubbleyew eight
12th Jan 2014, 14:06
isn't this so typical of casa's crap approach.

the requirement is a simple drivers licence.

casa just cant let go of the bullshit.

we have to have a special driver's licence certification under instrument blah blah.

for gods sake casa give it a rest or you'll go blind.
it is all bullshit. realise it and let it go. the guys are quite capable of seeing a doctor and managing their health without all your casa embuggerance.

dubbleyew eight
12th Jan 2014, 14:16
dear old vag227 you should know that a PPL , a CPL and an ATPL are ICAO recognised licences while the Pilot Certificate issued by the RAA is a national domestic certificate not recognised internationally.
do try to understand how it works old bean.

Creampuff
12th Jan 2014, 19:29
The certificate issued by a medical practitioner uses the uniform Australian private motor vehicle unconditional driving licence medical standards contained in the Austroads Inc. publication Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers, but modified by additional CASA-designed medical standards. This type of medical examination can be undertaken by any general practitioner and is similar in form to the Austroads Inc. driver licence medical examination. [My bolding]

Why oh why do they have to micro-manage this as well? :ugh:

Sarcs
12th Jan 2014, 20:20
Not one for promoting threads drifting along for ever..:E..and as "K" suggests perhaps it could be taken up elsewhere, however Creamy's last :D does take us to the nub of the issue that the WLR should be considering: Why oh why do they have to micro-manage this as well? :ugh: For the benefit of Vag277 who said this originally..

"...The USA has caught up with Australia. Introduced here 2 years ago!..."

Actually the DLM concept was introduced as part of a package of Light Sport Aircraft rules back in 2004-5. Originally the FAA thought they would go down the path of writing a SFAR to incorporate these rules but then it was decided to introduce the LSA rules holus bolus into the relevant FARs.

Medical Certificate requirements therefore were introduced into FAR Part 61 as section 61.23: FAR Part 61 Sec 61.23 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/61.23)





(2) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must--


(i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle; (ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third- class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and
(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.


For Vag277's benefit here is the list of rules for LSA requirements for the US, reference page 4 for 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration.medical:
EAA abbreviated version of the rules (http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/sp_rule.pdf)

And if you want the long version of the reasoning for the rules visit here:
NFRM - LSA Effective September 1, 2004. (http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule.pdf) (reference pg 150)

So again we have a case of the Yanks going the full hog and incorporating/adapting the rules (in this case for LSA) into the current regs (because they have them of course..:E) vs FF writing another tediously micro-managed exemption instrument (some 8 years later)...hmm so Vag 277 which system would you prefer??:confused:

OK back to the thread..:ok:

Addendum again for Vag277's benefit: If you had done the reading you would have picked up on the hidden clues from Paul Bertorelli's article Aviation Gets a Congressional Star Turn (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-12.html&v=1&libId=f167c30b-446a-43d5-ac18-0a94a1349c47&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapicdn.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3 Dgo%26key%3D1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d%26loc%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%252F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-12.html%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.avweb.com%252Fblogs%2 52Finsider%252FAviation-Gets-a-Congressional-Star-Turn-221119-1.html%26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Faustral ia-new-zealand-pacific%252F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-13.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-13.html&title=Truss%3A%20Aviation%20Safety%20Regulation%20Review%20-%20Page%2012%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=%3CB%20abp%3D%22509%22%3EAviation%20Gets%20a%20Congressi onal%20Star%20Turn%3C%2FB%3E&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13895639588126) : The bill would expand the use of the driver’s license medical certification to allow pilots to fly aircraft up to 6000 pounds, VFR in non-commercial operations. While I don’t think the elimination or curtailment of the Third Class will kill the light sport industry, it will put a dent in it, especially for some manufacturers. Many LSA buyers are older pilots who have the wherewithal to pay cash for $130,000 airplanes. Some are doing that because they’re selling their Bonanzas or Skyhawks out of medical-loss fear. They see LSAs as lifeboats to extend their flying career. If fear of medical loss no longer propels them, light sport will lose some sales. Much like FF's peerless leader, it would appear, to this layman at least, of another classic case of FIMD (foot in mouth disease..:E)...err PMO your diagnosis please...:rolleyes:

Kharon
12th Jan 2014, 21:20
Matters medical could stand it's own thread; probably been done before and like any a topic which touches everyone there's always a talent pool willing to provide good information and discussion. Even the obligatory troll; happily, they are fairly easy to pick and easily ignored. Which ever way you look at it, the old pony Poohshambolic seems to have run the course between the AAT and the office too many times to attract decent odds (gods alone know the total cost). This is an area where 'leadership', or rather the lack thereof, really starts to show up. You'd think a budget conscious, progressive boss would look at world best practice, look at what's occurring on his own patch, look to how improvements and savings could be made. A simple directive, setting out the strategy and a 'get on with it' line could save millions. Will the WLR could consider the Avmed rules as part of their robust review?, can they?; has our three man tea party enough time, latitude. horsepower and interest to get down in the weeds and look. Enough – lest I ramble.

An interesting though oblique element of the Avmed discussion is how much attention folk are willing to give to anything of which they have had experience. I had coffee with John Quadrio one day, quite accidental, bloke I was with knew John; introductions were made and, as I had time to kill, second coffee's were ordered. Considering the tale, John was remarkably calm and sanguine, told the story without rancour even the odd bit of humour thrown in; I was impressed and could not discern too much fairy dust being added to my long black. When the yarn was spun; it occurred to me to ask one final question. "If a bloke in a pub told you a story like yours, what would you do". A quiet smile on an honest face told me all I needed to know. Unless you have been through a CASA close encounter, of the pineapple kind, or the medical kind, or the engineering kind; it's just a yarn. But when you start to collate the facts, examine the evidence, read all the tedious, convoluted correspondence, weigh it against the procedure, protocol and rules, a quiet yarn over a coffee takes you to some ugly, dark places. Dare the WLR go there ?, can it?. Nay: caution human nature at work; if the beast is not in your cave, why leave the fire. Hush now.

The WLR must, if it does nothing else of any value look at the rules governing the way in which NCN, Safety Alert and Show Cause are sprinkled about like confetti at a wedding, then ruthlessly used as a club to enforce someone's vision of safety. It's time we were rid of bullies, liars, willing accomplices, catamites, unprincipled investigators, the lawyers that support them and the twisted notion that enforcement and prosecution outside of the principals of law can ever enhance safety. No matter how many plagiarised, nonsense reports are 'commissioned' to suit. Money won't go close to sorting it either. It is, very much a matter of principal and conscience

Dear Mr. Truss. We, the WLB running the WLR suggest that you immediately outlaw double jeopardy, forbid the use of the AAT and only allow prosecution in court by the CDPP. If not can we please find a man of good will and conscience to run the joint. All roads lead to Rome, even the long winding ones, through the wabbit warrens.

Selah.

IF you wake at midnight, and hear a horse's feet,
Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,
Them that ask no questions isn't told a lie.
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by.

Five and twenty ponies,
Trotting through the dark -
Brandy for the Parson, 'Baccy for the Clerk.
Laces for a lady; letters for a spy,
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by!
Courtesy Mr. Kipling.

Frank Arouet
13th Jan 2014, 02:11
It's my opinion, the lot of them need a harmonic balancer... (or is that a syncro-phaser), plus the CASA dictionary, tied around their necks with barb wire and dropped off the continental shelf. But that's probably illegal as well.

Kharon
13th Jan 2014, 19:27
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 No. 153, 1997 as amended

There are only a humble 90 pages in this document, but it does make clear who gets the pineapple. The problem of course is one of delivery.

responsible Minister means:
(a) for a Commonwealth authority—the Minister who is responsible for the authority; or
(b) for a Commonwealth company:
(i) the Minister who is prescribed by the regulations as the Minister responsible for the company; or
(ii) if no Minister is prescribed—the Minister who is responsible for the company.

27E Responsibility for actions of directors delegate.

(1) If the directors of a Commonwealth authority delegate a power under its enabling legislation, a director is responsible for the exercise of the power by the delegate as if the power had been exercised by the directors themselves.

(2) A director is not responsible under subsection (1) if:
(a) the director believed on reasonable grounds at all times that the delegate would exercise the power in conformity with the duties imposed on directors of the Commonwealth authority by this Act and the authority’s enabling legislation; and
(b) the director believed:
(i) on reasonable grounds; and
(ii) in good faith; and
(iii) after making proper inquiry if the circumstances indicated the need for inquiry; that the delegate was reliable and competent in relation to the power delegated.

You can discern the issues, why bother with paragraph one (1) and then provide a world of wriggle room in paragraph two (2). In a 'normal' world the terms would seem reasonable to an honest man; the term 'in good faith' is used. There's the entire cost of a child's education right there for any legal eagle. However if a case was ever driven through all the hoops, would it, in the final analysis come down to a two dog fight, Minister v Director.

Perhaps the WLR should consider some of the CASA actions in terms this Act and of potential court actions, against individual officers. Because one thing is certain, if anyone, under pressure from personal liability breaks ranks and blows the whistle, the only screaming heard will be that of liability, through responsibility. The Nuremburg defence didn't work when it was first used, it has no chance here, not in our proudly independent, litigious country. But the WLR needs to conduct the orchestra with caution; one trumpet out of tune can really spoil the performance. Remember:-

In space – no one can hear you scream.

Toot toot.

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

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

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


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

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

Mr Boyd : Yes, but not in that position.

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

Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the next breath this individual said...

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

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

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


Perhaps?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr McCormick: Yes, we have.

Senator XENOPHON: When did you do that?

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed, Disillusioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few further Qs. :ok:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the press: Mt Vernon, Texas. Headline.

WHOREHOUSE SUES LOCAL CHURCH OVER LIGHTNING STRIKE!

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

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

There, I feel much better now.

Selah.

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

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

before May 2003

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

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

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

after July 2003

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

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

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

Objectives

The principal objectives of the review are to investigate:

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

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

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

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

• any other safety related matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the 1999 version we had the following paragraph…

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

.. in 2001…

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

..and in 2004..


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Questions;


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

Sarcs
20th Jan 2014, 23:01
Addendum:

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

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

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


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

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

Cheers

Sarcs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Alive,

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

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

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

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


Truss obviously, is led by him.


But I was wrong once before.

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

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

I have amended the offending paragraph to reflect accurate figures.

Mea Culpa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

&

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

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

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

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

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


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

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