CASA reply to PPRuNe email re TVL.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
Point taken re the interception of emails. That they were intercepted is fact.
How they were intercepted may not have been by electronic stealth,
more likely simple theft, such as printing them out without the owners authority or knowledge.
B1 and B2 are definitely on the case, and they are not likely to appreciate being deceived by the protectors.
B1 has frequently been given cold hard factual evidence, evidence that was at the time discounted.
(and given to the accused to investigate himself!!)
B2 is now in the game, and yes with B1 and B2 working on the problem, a resolution is likely.
The problem with the resolution, as you have noted, is dealing with the problem without being seen to lose face.
More sackings are indicated, both at Head Office, and at regional level.
Then, and only then can the new AM NQAO get on with the job of implementing Byron's desired reforms.
AC is held in good regard by the industry and is an ethical person, something that does not sit well with his subordinates.
Sufficient evidence, if available, should now be assembled to assist the AFP conduct an external investigation of certain questionable
and possibly criminal behaviour, rather than leaving it to CASA to investigate it's own.
CASA has proven incapable of conducting a credible internal investigation,
and cannot be permitted to waste another $50,000 on specifically tailored reports.
Byron was possibly misled in the conduct of the tailored investigation
and needs to have a little chat with those who made him look silly.
and yes, I will view the video, even though the similarities of behaviour may enrage me.
And finally, B1 and B2 need all the help, all the evidence that can be mustered, BUT, this time they MUST ACT!
Point taken re the interception of emails. That they were intercepted is fact.
How they were intercepted may not have been by electronic stealth,
more likely simple theft, such as printing them out without the owners authority or knowledge.
B1 and B2 are definitely on the case, and they are not likely to appreciate being deceived by the protectors.
B1 has frequently been given cold hard factual evidence, evidence that was at the time discounted.
(and given to the accused to investigate himself!!)
B2 is now in the game, and yes with B1 and B2 working on the problem, a resolution is likely.
The problem with the resolution, as you have noted, is dealing with the problem without being seen to lose face.
More sackings are indicated, both at Head Office, and at regional level.
Then, and only then can the new AM NQAO get on with the job of implementing Byron's desired reforms.
AC is held in good regard by the industry and is an ethical person, something that does not sit well with his subordinates.
Sufficient evidence, if available, should now be assembled to assist the AFP conduct an external investigation of certain questionable
and possibly criminal behaviour, rather than leaving it to CASA to investigate it's own.
CASA has proven incapable of conducting a credible internal investigation,
and cannot be permitted to waste another $50,000 on specifically tailored reports.
Byron was possibly misled in the conduct of the tailored investigation
and needs to have a little chat with those who made him look silly.
and yes, I will view the video, even though the similarities of behaviour may enrage me.
And finally, B1 and B2 need all the help, all the evidence that can be mustered, BUT, this time they MUST ACT!
Last edited by Captain Starlight; 30th Apr 2005 at 10:40.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Launceston
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because you are paranoid doen't mean they are not out to get you.
I'd suggest if these guys can do what you say they can, then slandering them on here might be less anonymous than you think!!!!
I'd suggest if these guys can do what you say they can, then slandering them on here might be less anonymous than you think!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm I don't think anyone in the middle of this is under any illusions or misapprehensions about who is doing what to whom and what is and is not being done about it.
Anyone choosing to retaliate against any who they think may post here simply proves the point as it is almost guaranteed that their actions will be posted here.
It has not been unknown in PPRuNeland for light to be shone into places some would rather it not be.
The internet and Bulletin Boards are a wonderful thing, it is the great leveller, it doesn't matter who or where you are, you can run but you can't hide.
The Voices of Reason in the NAS debate calmly and systematically defrocked the self appointed guru on the subject without using anything beyond rational process, resources and information available to anyone in the public domain. For the period the subject was on foot it was required reading in the industry.
Our job is simply to ensure it is not misused or abused.
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.,
Anyone choosing to retaliate against any who they think may post here simply proves the point as it is almost guaranteed that their actions will be posted here.
It has not been unknown in PPRuNeland for light to be shone into places some would rather it not be.
The internet and Bulletin Boards are a wonderful thing, it is the great leveller, it doesn't matter who or where you are, you can run but you can't hide.
The Voices of Reason in the NAS debate calmly and systematically defrocked the self appointed guru on the subject without using anything beyond rational process, resources and information available to anyone in the public domain. For the period the subject was on foot it was required reading in the industry.
Our job is simply to ensure it is not misused or abused.
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.,
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Launceston
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera
In a post above someone says you can download a product that will tell you who is attempting to enter your PC (be that a server or normal PC), that product is a part of the normal full Symantic product.
Also available, from that same supplier, but only to authorized web masters, is a product that can cross reference IP addresses from almost any site, thus telling you who has posted what from where.
Recently, in the US federal court, such a product was used to prove that a certain person had posted information that was, in that country classified and, under an agreement, that person was extradited for charge in the US.
All I am saying is, take care.
In a post above someone says you can download a product that will tell you who is attempting to enter your PC (be that a server or normal PC), that product is a part of the normal full Symantic product.
Also available, from that same supplier, but only to authorized web masters, is a product that can cross reference IP addresses from almost any site, thus telling you who has posted what from where.
Recently, in the US federal court, such a product was used to prove that a certain person had posted information that was, in that country classified and, under an agreement, that person was extradited for charge in the US.
All I am saying is, take care.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SYSTEMIC FAILURES IN CASA NQAO ?
The fatality rate associated with this office continues to increase.
Maybe we can shell out another $50,000 of public money to
affirm that there are no systemic failures in CASA's NQAO ?
It is quite apparent that sneaking around quietly with a big stick and whacking people on the head doesn't work,
and has not resolved the fatal accident rate associated with this office.
Get rid of the failures and replace them with safety educators,
who can both communicate with, and work with the industry to achieve a mutual goal, SAFETY.
The fatality rate associated with this office continues to increase.
Maybe we can shell out another $50,000 of public money to
affirm that there are no systemic failures in CASA's NQAO ?
It is quite apparent that sneaking around quietly with a big stick and whacking people on the head doesn't work,
and has not resolved the fatal accident rate associated with this office.
Get rid of the failures and replace them with safety educators,
who can both communicate with, and work with the industry to achieve a mutual goal, SAFETY.
I was wondering when someone was going to postulate a connection between the tragedy at Lockhart River and certain alleged previous CASA behaviours. I hope for the sake of all concerned that there isn't one.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone would be stretching a very long bow indeed, if they were to suggest a tangible connection between the Lockhart River accident and the parlous performance of the CASA offices in FNQ over many years.
Whilst FNQ may have the highest accident rate in Australia - although I haven't seen any statistics to support that fact - there are a number of mitigating factors, including inclement tropical weather patterns, short and poorly maintained strips etc.
However, I suspect this accident will be subject to a wide and deep investigation and inquiry during the course of which I'm sure CASA's performance in FNQ will be fully scrutinised.
One would think, at very least, there has been an offence against CAR 210 over many years, an offence of strict liability, with tacit CASA approval.
Whilst FNQ may have the highest accident rate in Australia - although I haven't seen any statistics to support that fact - there are a number of mitigating factors, including inclement tropical weather patterns, short and poorly maintained strips etc.
However, I suspect this accident will be subject to a wide and deep investigation and inquiry during the course of which I'm sure CASA's performance in FNQ will be fully scrutinised.
One would think, at very least, there has been an offence against CAR 210 over many years, an offence of strict liability, with tacit CASA approval.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Launceston
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think there is what you'd call a tangible link.
But there is a political one.
MD of An Topical Aeroplane Company stands in Fed election for the 'Christian Loonies First Party', preference deals to follow.
Another Cape York Operator is investigated by said Corrupt Aviation Safety Authority office, this Cape York opertor loses valuable Government contracts to aforesaid operator.
Suddenly, CLF Party preferences the Nationals.
Now I really don't think the Honerable the Minister for QANTAS would do anything like this and I am absolutely sure people like Tony Windsor would vouch for him.
BUT, that aint nuffin to do with the tragedy, and I mean that!!!!
But there is a political one.
MD of An Topical Aeroplane Company stands in Fed election for the 'Christian Loonies First Party', preference deals to follow.
Another Cape York Operator is investigated by said Corrupt Aviation Safety Authority office, this Cape York opertor loses valuable Government contracts to aforesaid operator.
Suddenly, CLF Party preferences the Nationals.
Now I really don't think the Honerable the Minister for QANTAS would do anything like this and I am absolutely sure people like Tony Windsor would vouch for him.
BUT, that aint nuffin to do with the tragedy, and I mean that!!!!
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly and foremost, this accident is tragic and has snuffed out the lives of some I and others knew.
Grief has a natural process to follow,
firstly DENIAL, it hasn't really happened,
then ANGER, this shouldn't have happened to these people,
then BLAME, no explanation needed,
then resignation and ACCEPTANCE,
yes, it has happened, and everything will be done to explain why.
Should there be any scrutiny of the NQAO, surely an independant external investigator,
not appointed or paid by CASA, will establish that this is an exemplary outpost of the regulator,
that there has been no questionable conduct by any of the senior staff at any time and that all of the alleged
misconduct, the alleged bias, the alleged lack of fair and impartial treatment, is indeed a fallacy?
Well, won't it ?
Sunfish,
Why ?
JetAok
Who really is the operator ? Think hard about it.
Air Ace
A deep and thorough external scrutiny of the CASA NQAO can only be healthy, as opposed to "independant internal investigations".
Dynamic Stall
All is not as it seems. A deep and external scrutiny will shed light in the darkness of backroom deals.
Grief has a natural process to follow,
firstly DENIAL, it hasn't really happened,
then ANGER, this shouldn't have happened to these people,
then BLAME, no explanation needed,
then resignation and ACCEPTANCE,
yes, it has happened, and everything will be done to explain why.
Should there be any scrutiny of the NQAO, surely an independant external investigator,
not appointed or paid by CASA, will establish that this is an exemplary outpost of the regulator,
that there has been no questionable conduct by any of the senior staff at any time and that all of the alleged
misconduct, the alleged bias, the alleged lack of fair and impartial treatment, is indeed a fallacy?
Well, won't it ?
Sunfish,
Why ?
JetAok
Who really is the operator ? Think hard about it.
Air Ace
A deep and thorough external scrutiny of the CASA NQAO can only be healthy, as opposed to "independant internal investigations".
Dynamic Stall
All is not as it seems. A deep and external scrutiny will shed light in the darkness of backroom deals.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR210, an offence of strict liability.
How can an aircraft bear the name of one operator who sells tickets, publically advertises and promotes an RPT service, provides passenger terminal services - without holding the AOC and specified aircraft type - when, unbeknown to the punters, the service is operated by another unrelated operator who owns the aircraft and holds the required AOC?
How can an aircraft bear the name of one operator who sells tickets, publically advertises and promotes an RPT service, provides passenger terminal services - without holding the AOC and specified aircraft type - when, unbeknown to the punters, the service is operated by another unrelated operator who owns the aircraft and holds the required AOC?
From pp 175-176 of the Senate Hansard for Tuesday 10 May 2005, available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...s/ds100505.pdf
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(Question No. 357)
Senator Mark Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 February 2005:
(1) Would the Minister provide a list of activities that may be reported under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) protected disclosure policy.
(2) How many reports by activity type have been lodged since the inception of the protected disclosure policy.
(3) What is the process by which STOPline was selected for its role in the protected disclosure policy.
(4) Who made the final decision to engage STOPline.
(5) What is the annual amount to be paid to STOPline for its role in the protected disclosure policy.
(6) When did STOPline’s contract commence and when is it due to finish.
(7) Would the Minister confirm that STOPline regularly monitors CASA’s actions in dealing with disclosures and that reports are provided to CASA’s Audit and Risk Committee.
(8) Does the Minister receive a copy of these reports; if so, how often are the reports provided.
(9) Can these reports be made available to the Senate; if not, why not.
(10) Would the Minister provide the dates, numbers and office locations of instances of staff discipline resulting from the protected disclosure policy since its inception.
(11) Would the Minister provide the dates, numbers and office locations of instances of staff dismissal resulting from the protected disclosure policy since its inception.
(12) Would the Minister provide the numbers, office locations and commencement dates of instances of legal proceedings brought against staff resulting from the protected disclosure policy since its inception.
Senator Ian Campbell—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
(1) The Protected Disclosure Policy sets out the conduct that may be reported under that Policy. The Policy provides that a person may report conduct under the Policy, which, in the honest belief of the person making the report:
(a) is dishonest; or
(b) is fraudulent; or
(c) is corrupt; or
(d) is illegal (including theft, drugs sale/use, violence or threatened violence and criminal damage against property);
(e) is in breach of Commonwealth or State legislation or local authority by-laws; or
(f) is unethical (either representing a breach of CASA’s code of conduct or generally); or
(g) constitutes serious and improper conduct; or
(h) results in, or contributes to, an unsafe workplace; or
(i) constitutes a repeated instance of breach of administrative procedures; or
(j) constitutes gross mismanagement; or
(k) constitutes, or results in, a serious and substantial waste of CASA resources; or
(l) constitutes a reprisal for disclosing reportable conduct; or
(m) may cause financial or non-financial loss to CASA or may otherwise be detrimental to the interests of CASA.
(2) Five (5) reports have been lodged with CASA since the commencement of CASA’s Protected Disclosure Policy, these include:
- 2 allegations of corrupt conduct/behaviour
- 1 allegation of fraudulent travel claims
- 2 reports were assessed as not fitting within the scope of reportable conduct.
(3) At the time STOPline was selected, it was the only private and independent company specialising in this field known to CASA.
(4) STOPline was engaged under contract signed by the Chief Executive Officer.
(5) $18,000 per annum
(6) The contract commenced on 19 April 2004 for a two-year period ending on 18 April 2006.
(7) STOPline monitors CASA’s actions to ensure that matters are progressed and that complainants are advised of progress on their complaints. STOPline does not independently assess whether CASA’s actions in response to a complaint are appropriate or adequate CASA’s Audit and Risk Committee is regularly provided with summaries of all internal investigations, and is informed about any allegations received by CASA via the STOPline process and the actions taken to address the allegations. The Committee is not provided with copies of investigation reports.
(8) The Minister does not receive copies of these reports.
(9) The reports generally deal with named individuals. For privacy reasons, it would not be appropriate for these reports to be provided to the Senate.
(10) One staff member in Canberra received formal counselling in 2004. One staff member in Canberra received informal (verbal) counselling in 2004. Both these disciplinary measures resulted from the receipt of a single protected disclosure.
(11) No staff dismissals have occurred as a result of a protected disclosure investigation.
(12) No legal proceedings have commenced against any CASA staff member as a result of a protected disclosure investigation.
(Question No. 357)
Senator Mark Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 February 2005:
(1) Would the Minister provide a list of activities that may be reported under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) protected disclosure policy.
(2) How many reports by activity type have been lodged since the inception of the protected disclosure policy.
(3) What is the process by which STOPline was selected for its role in the protected disclosure policy.
(4) Who made the final decision to engage STOPline.
(5) What is the annual amount to be paid to STOPline for its role in the protected disclosure policy.
(6) When did STOPline’s contract commence and when is it due to finish.
(7) Would the Minister confirm that STOPline regularly monitors CASA’s actions in dealing with disclosures and that reports are provided to CASA’s Audit and Risk Committee.
(8) Does the Minister receive a copy of these reports; if so, how often are the reports provided.
(9) Can these reports be made available to the Senate; if not, why not.
(10) Would the Minister provide the dates, numbers and office locations of instances of staff discipline resulting from the protected disclosure policy since its inception.
(11) Would the Minister provide the dates, numbers and office locations of instances of staff dismissal resulting from the protected disclosure policy since its inception.
(12) Would the Minister provide the numbers, office locations and commencement dates of instances of legal proceedings brought against staff resulting from the protected disclosure policy since its inception.
Senator Ian Campbell—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
(1) The Protected Disclosure Policy sets out the conduct that may be reported under that Policy. The Policy provides that a person may report conduct under the Policy, which, in the honest belief of the person making the report:
(a) is dishonest; or
(b) is fraudulent; or
(c) is corrupt; or
(d) is illegal (including theft, drugs sale/use, violence or threatened violence and criminal damage against property);
(e) is in breach of Commonwealth or State legislation or local authority by-laws; or
(f) is unethical (either representing a breach of CASA’s code of conduct or generally); or
(g) constitutes serious and improper conduct; or
(h) results in, or contributes to, an unsafe workplace; or
(i) constitutes a repeated instance of breach of administrative procedures; or
(j) constitutes gross mismanagement; or
(k) constitutes, or results in, a serious and substantial waste of CASA resources; or
(l) constitutes a reprisal for disclosing reportable conduct; or
(m) may cause financial or non-financial loss to CASA or may otherwise be detrimental to the interests of CASA.
(2) Five (5) reports have been lodged with CASA since the commencement of CASA’s Protected Disclosure Policy, these include:
- 2 allegations of corrupt conduct/behaviour
- 1 allegation of fraudulent travel claims
- 2 reports were assessed as not fitting within the scope of reportable conduct.
(3) At the time STOPline was selected, it was the only private and independent company specialising in this field known to CASA.
(4) STOPline was engaged under contract signed by the Chief Executive Officer.
(5) $18,000 per annum
(6) The contract commenced on 19 April 2004 for a two-year period ending on 18 April 2006.
(7) STOPline monitors CASA’s actions to ensure that matters are progressed and that complainants are advised of progress on their complaints. STOPline does not independently assess whether CASA’s actions in response to a complaint are appropriate or adequate CASA’s Audit and Risk Committee is regularly provided with summaries of all internal investigations, and is informed about any allegations received by CASA via the STOPline process and the actions taken to address the allegations. The Committee is not provided with copies of investigation reports.
(8) The Minister does not receive copies of these reports.
(9) The reports generally deal with named individuals. For privacy reasons, it would not be appropriate for these reports to be provided to the Senate.
(10) One staff member in Canberra received formal counselling in 2004. One staff member in Canberra received informal (verbal) counselling in 2004. Both these disciplinary measures resulted from the receipt of a single protected disclosure.
(11) No staff dismissals have occurred as a result of a protected disclosure investigation.
(12) No legal proceedings have commenced against any CASA staff member as a result of a protected disclosure investigation.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
Oh Gee, I wonder where this line of questioning is going.
Captain Starlight,
I would also think that connection is a bit of a long bow to draw, having said that, this is no where near as long as the bows the four of our friends have tried to draw.
Did you know Pinnochio is trying to enforce the post flight fuel calculations ( i.e how much fuel remains in the tanks post flight ) as a requirement for Charter, in his not so humble opinion a charter is a scheduled flight ????.
Mr Rum has stated that a pilot must have access their companies Operations Manual (COM) 24 hours per day, if the company was to issue the pilot with the COM on CD, the company must provide the pilot with a computer to use at home ?????.
I would like to reiterate that CASA is not the core problem, the previously mentioned four representative are, as they make the rules up as they go, lets not even look at their collective histories of industry related failures ( AKA Careers ).
AC, NF, CW, RP are approachable, experienced professionals that have a job to do, which i feel they do well, i feel its unfair to paint these gents with the same brush as Ronald, Pinnochio, Mr Rum and the RFDS night specialist.
MR Newby, well the jury is still out on him.
Oh Gee, I wonder where this line of questioning is going.
Captain Starlight,
I would also think that connection is a bit of a long bow to draw, having said that, this is no where near as long as the bows the four of our friends have tried to draw.
Did you know Pinnochio is trying to enforce the post flight fuel calculations ( i.e how much fuel remains in the tanks post flight ) as a requirement for Charter, in his not so humble opinion a charter is a scheduled flight ????.
Mr Rum has stated that a pilot must have access their companies Operations Manual (COM) 24 hours per day, if the company was to issue the pilot with the COM on CD, the company must provide the pilot with a computer to use at home ?????.
I would like to reiterate that CASA is not the core problem, the previously mentioned four representative are, as they make the rules up as they go, lets not even look at their collective histories of industry related failures ( AKA Careers ).
AC, NF, CW, RP are approachable, experienced professionals that have a job to do, which i feel they do well, i feel its unfair to paint these gents with the same brush as Ronald, Pinnochio, Mr Rum and the RFDS night specialist.
MR Newby, well the jury is still out on him.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
Thank you for the very informative post on CASA's protective disclosure stance.
Provided CASA does not investigate (protect?) it's own, there may be some hope here for those with hard evidence
of misconduct, criminal acts, unethical behaviour and other matters associated with the over achieving office,
and some other offices.
Stinkfinger
Always relieved to see you're still able to communicate with us.
(they haven't nailed you yet !)
Maybe a long bow to draw, but a proper investigation by an external and truly independant investigator
may uncover serious systemic issues and failures, not only with NQAO, but with CASA itself.
For starters, just look at the recruitment process that seems to foster industry and military failures.
For the salaries being paid to some of the failures,
surely psychological screening could save CASA and the industry a lot of future problems.
As FOI's are generally getting airline type salaries, airline type screening is justifiable.
Your observations regarding the team with their integrity intact seems to be right on the money (AC CW NF RP).
This team, has the support and trust of the industry and particularly AC
with his efforts at dialogue with his constituents in the industry.
The other team is certainly ethically and morally challenged, and bereft of any semblance of integrity.
Pinoccio and Mr Rum are not under any duress,
they compete with each other by the magnitude of their misconduct
for their "illustrious Leader"s approval.
Pinoccio has slowly emerged as the favoured one, perhaps that will spur Mr Rum to greater efforts to impress?
The night specialist is a bit of a quandary, some feel that he has some degree of ethics, but is under duress,
and thus his conduct is to ensure his survival, not to gain approval.
That conduct has been questionable at times and is well known,
as is his occasional carelessness with truth.
(Pinoccio has no problems at all with truth, he consistently confirms that he is a compulsive prevaricator.
If that is a genetic defect, then perhaps he may be excused.)
Thank you for the very informative post on CASA's protective disclosure stance.
Provided CASA does not investigate (protect?) it's own, there may be some hope here for those with hard evidence
of misconduct, criminal acts, unethical behaviour and other matters associated with the over achieving office,
and some other offices.
Stinkfinger
Always relieved to see you're still able to communicate with us.
(they haven't nailed you yet !)
Maybe a long bow to draw, but a proper investigation by an external and truly independant investigator
may uncover serious systemic issues and failures, not only with NQAO, but with CASA itself.
For starters, just look at the recruitment process that seems to foster industry and military failures.
For the salaries being paid to some of the failures,
surely psychological screening could save CASA and the industry a lot of future problems.
As FOI's are generally getting airline type salaries, airline type screening is justifiable.
Your observations regarding the team with their integrity intact seems to be right on the money (AC CW NF RP).
This team, has the support and trust of the industry and particularly AC
with his efforts at dialogue with his constituents in the industry.
The other team is certainly ethically and morally challenged, and bereft of any semblance of integrity.
Pinoccio and Mr Rum are not under any duress,
they compete with each other by the magnitude of their misconduct
for their "illustrious Leader"s approval.
Pinoccio has slowly emerged as the favoured one, perhaps that will spur Mr Rum to greater efforts to impress?
The night specialist is a bit of a quandary, some feel that he has some degree of ethics, but is under duress,
and thus his conduct is to ensure his survival, not to gain approval.
That conduct has been questionable at times and is well known,
as is his occasional carelessness with truth.
(Pinoccio has no problems at all with truth, he consistently confirms that he is a compulsive prevaricator.
If that is a genetic defect, then perhaps he may be excused.)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refer to the weekend edition, Courier Mail.
"Lockhart River Tragedy"
and to my post above.
________________________________________________
"Maybe a long bow to draw, but a proper investigation by an external and truly independant investigator
may uncover serious systemic issues and failures, not only with NQAO, but with CASA itself."
________________________________________________
The Courier Mail suggests that ATSB also had prior anonymous concerns expressed to them, as did CASA.
CASA has been known in the past to act on anonymous and unverified information, so what's holding them back this time?
When the proper EXTERNAL INVESTIGATION eventuates, watch for a lot more truth being revealed,
then judge for yourself if the regulator has always acted fairly and impartially with regard to all operators.
Unfortunately Batman and Robyn may soon need to leave Gotham City,
and hand over law and order to others less ethically challenged.
THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL.
Understand this axiom: even though it may take time, all will eventually come out in the wash.
"Lockhart River Tragedy"
and to my post above.
________________________________________________
"Maybe a long bow to draw, but a proper investigation by an external and truly independant investigator
may uncover serious systemic issues and failures, not only with NQAO, but with CASA itself."
________________________________________________
The Courier Mail suggests that ATSB also had prior anonymous concerns expressed to them, as did CASA.
CASA has been known in the past to act on anonymous and unverified information, so what's holding them back this time?
When the proper EXTERNAL INVESTIGATION eventuates, watch for a lot more truth being revealed,
then judge for yourself if the regulator has always acted fairly and impartially with regard to all operators.
Unfortunately Batman and Robyn may soon need to leave Gotham City,
and hand over law and order to others less ethically challenged.
THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL.
Understand this axiom: even though it may take time, all will eventually come out in the wash.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain S,
As i am sure you are aware, RPT operators such as Transair, are audited by CASA every six months, this audit is in addition to the relevant contracts audits ( such as mining and petrochemical companies ).
"L" would not hold an RPT licence in OZ or PNG if he didn't have appropriate systems in place.
A long Bow, let me expand, i do not feel that CASA TL caused this accident through the incomptence of Ronald and friends. The operator is serviced by CASA BN, much to "L"'s relief i am sure.
As far as the clown pilot, with his voice masked being filmed in a dark office goes, well you find me an operator that does not have a " I told you so disgruntled employee", that would be stupid enough to go to the media with catch cries such as " Systemic Management Failures".
I have no idea what this individuals story was, he has demonstrated publicly why he will not suceed in life, "The glass is half empty I tell you".
Have a look on pprune at the accident topics, Lake Evella, Horn Island etc etc, there is always one.
I would feel dirty to try to use TFU as ammunition against the TL office cretons. From my experience their incompetence is best illustrated by their desire to see all aircraft on the ground, therefore no accidents.
What has the FDR indicated ?, let me float a hypothesis, what if the pilots just stuffed up, out of tolerance and below the step ( look at the RWY 12 GPS NPA for LHR ), how could you possibly point the bone on this one ?.
I make mistakes, what about you ?.
Pushing this point will do more damage than good to the cause, what Ronald and his friends have done to date is disgacefull and will not be forgotten, the truth will prevail. Stay on the course and you'll be right, otherwise you'll start to look like a nut case.
As i am sure you are aware, RPT operators such as Transair, are audited by CASA every six months, this audit is in addition to the relevant contracts audits ( such as mining and petrochemical companies ).
"L" would not hold an RPT licence in OZ or PNG if he didn't have appropriate systems in place.
A long Bow, let me expand, i do not feel that CASA TL caused this accident through the incomptence of Ronald and friends. The operator is serviced by CASA BN, much to "L"'s relief i am sure.
As far as the clown pilot, with his voice masked being filmed in a dark office goes, well you find me an operator that does not have a " I told you so disgruntled employee", that would be stupid enough to go to the media with catch cries such as " Systemic Management Failures".
I have no idea what this individuals story was, he has demonstrated publicly why he will not suceed in life, "The glass is half empty I tell you".
Have a look on pprune at the accident topics, Lake Evella, Horn Island etc etc, there is always one.
I would feel dirty to try to use TFU as ammunition against the TL office cretons. From my experience their incompetence is best illustrated by their desire to see all aircraft on the ground, therefore no accidents.
What has the FDR indicated ?, let me float a hypothesis, what if the pilots just stuffed up, out of tolerance and below the step ( look at the RWY 12 GPS NPA for LHR ), how could you possibly point the bone on this one ?.
I make mistakes, what about you ?.
Pushing this point will do more damage than good to the cause, what Ronald and his friends have done to date is disgacefull and will not be forgotten, the truth will prevail. Stay on the course and you'll be right, otherwise you'll start to look like a nut case.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SF,
Thank you for your advice and counsel, consider it digested and heeded.
I too am also satisfied that the truth will eventually prevail.
Yes, we all make mistakes, a famous quote: "to err is human",
most of us are lucky enough to survive and learn from our human experiences, be it driving a car,
flying a plane or just our daily interactions in this life we cherish.
As for the disgruntled ex employees, they tend to proliferate at times of vulnerability,
but who really trusts CASA enough to talk to them ?
Once upon a time we could talk openly to them with mutual trust and respect,
and when Byron eventually achieves his reforms,
we may again all be partners in the mutual desire for safety.
Thank you for your advice and counsel, consider it digested and heeded.
I too am also satisfied that the truth will eventually prevail.
Yes, we all make mistakes, a famous quote: "to err is human",
most of us are lucky enough to survive and learn from our human experiences, be it driving a car,
flying a plane or just our daily interactions in this life we cherish.
As for the disgruntled ex employees, they tend to proliferate at times of vulnerability,
but who really trusts CASA enough to talk to them ?
Once upon a time we could talk openly to them with mutual trust and respect,
and when Byron eventually achieves his reforms,
we may again all be partners in the mutual desire for safety.
The integrity of a CASA audit is directly related to the competence, professionalism and integrity of the CASA auditor(s). In many, possibly most cases, the conclusions and outcomes are influenced not by compliance with the Act and Regulations, but reflect a biased personal opinion of the auditor(s).
Consider the following extract from an Australian Flying magazine article, in relation to a FNQ operator:
Three audits over one month:
The first audit concludes: "This is no longer a compliant operator."
The second audit, two weeks later, concludes: "(Operator is) considered not to be an unsafe operator."
The third audit is based not on the Act or Regulations, but a "draft" paper prepared by (a CASA lawyer).
There are professional men of integrity employed by CASA. I fear it is an ever diminishing minority.
Consider the following extract from an Australian Flying magazine article, in relation to a FNQ operator:
4-6 November 1997:
A periodic inspection is conducted by an FOI from Cairns District. The officer's report, subsequently obtained only at the direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, says: "20 NCNs in total!" (exclamation mark as in the report.) The report added that: "This is no longer a compliant operator."
17-20 November 1997:
(Operator) is visited by an unannounced team headed by the Manager, Safety Audits, Southeast Region.
The four-man team conduct a four-day audit over 52 man-hours, which results in the issue of four NCNs. Three of these detailed minor errors in maintenance documentation, and one questioned dangerous goods acceptance procedures. The report concluded: "(Operator is) considered not to be an unsafe operator."
1-4 December 1997:
At the direction of CASA's Canberra office, two investigators and one Cairns FOI conduct an investigation with the following terms of reference: "Determine the extent of operations in the Torres Strait region which are being conducted for fare paying passengers that fall into the definition of RPT and which are currently being conducted as charter." The TOR directed that: "The differentiation between RPT and charter that is to be used for this investigation shall be drawn from the "draft" paper prepared by (a CASA lawyer) as attached."
The draft opinion, later obtained by (the Operator), attempted to define the five elements which must exist to constitute RPT. However it provided no definitions of two of the critical elements: "Specific route" and "fixed terminal".
The investigators had thus been instructed to investigate whether operators were in breach not of a regulation or rule, but of a draft opinion, which failed to provide critical definitions.
A periodic inspection is conducted by an FOI from Cairns District. The officer's report, subsequently obtained only at the direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, says: "20 NCNs in total!" (exclamation mark as in the report.) The report added that: "This is no longer a compliant operator."
17-20 November 1997:
(Operator) is visited by an unannounced team headed by the Manager, Safety Audits, Southeast Region.
The four-man team conduct a four-day audit over 52 man-hours, which results in the issue of four NCNs. Three of these detailed minor errors in maintenance documentation, and one questioned dangerous goods acceptance procedures. The report concluded: "(Operator is) considered not to be an unsafe operator."
1-4 December 1997:
At the direction of CASA's Canberra office, two investigators and one Cairns FOI conduct an investigation with the following terms of reference: "Determine the extent of operations in the Torres Strait region which are being conducted for fare paying passengers that fall into the definition of RPT and which are currently being conducted as charter." The TOR directed that: "The differentiation between RPT and charter that is to be used for this investigation shall be drawn from the "draft" paper prepared by (a CASA lawyer) as attached."
The draft opinion, later obtained by (the Operator), attempted to define the five elements which must exist to constitute RPT. However it provided no definitions of two of the critical elements: "Specific route" and "fixed terminal".
The investigators had thus been instructed to investigate whether operators were in breach not of a regulation or rule, but of a draft opinion, which failed to provide critical definitions.
The first audit concludes: "This is no longer a compliant operator."
The second audit, two weeks later, concludes: "(Operator is) considered not to be an unsafe operator."
The third audit is based not on the Act or Regulations, but a "draft" paper prepared by (a CASA lawyer).
There are professional men of integrity employed by CASA. I fear it is an ever diminishing minority.
You and Mr Phelan would have a teensy bit more credibility if you at least acknowledged the fact that Deputy President Dr Gerber of the AAT found, as CASA had found, that the game being played in the Torres Strait was RPT:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../1999/329.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../1999/329.html