Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 3rd Sep 2014, 19:48
  #2161 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Good press.

TB. –"Oh how I pray its Mike Smith, but that would probably be too much to wish for, given the extent of the "iron rings" rear guard action.
If Mike Smith has not been offered the post then the Bored has made it's first and probably fatal error. Mike could be on a jet and here ready to roll next week and does not need an introductory quarter year to be groomed by the Iron Rong. He'd hit the ground running and relax the ICAO/FAA nerves; the kudos from the Nigerian job alone would do the job.

Is giving Farq-u-hard-son a four month window of opportunity to cover up, shred and build a defence for likes of the McComic fifth column a second grave error? The smell of roses will be overpowering by the time the 'new boy' lobs in. By the time the new chum can find the exec dunny the GWM will be lined up, smiling faces, clean boots and spotless reputations. Probably not; there are 'other' ways to prevent this nightmare from becoming reality.

On the positive side , the GWM are playing against a first class team and perhaps will be back in the pavilion before the new boy arrives; Fawcett et al, plus the bored powerhouse of Boyd, Danos, Smith and Taylor can make some clear air, clear out the rubbish and get the brakes on before the Part 61 lunacy cripples what's left of industry and those who have invested heavily in it. Golly, if Truss has an epiphany and the rumours of ministerial displeasure pan out, it could just be an interesting quarter year.

We must hope that other, darker forces are in play and that the fumigators, pest exterminators, painters and decorators are sent in before the new boy arrives. In the unlikely event that the few brain cells available are used, the Acting DAS could start dishing out the parachutes while there are still some available, before the rush.

Toot toot.

Sarcs – that makes twice this week we have been impressed by the MSM journalists. What a shame that Ms. Devine or Ms. McCarthy don't report on matters 'aeronautical'; with that level of insight, talent and skill at work, it would be worth buying a newspaper again. The Telegraph article places a large red dot on some rather exposed fundamental orifices. Wasn't the Murky Machiavellian crew deeply implicated in the 'Pink Bats' saga ?– Oh dear; how very unfortunate...

Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Sep 2014 at 20:34. Reason: Text to Karma – Now is a good time.
Kharon is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2014, 00:05
  #2162 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
I agree, handing the keys to the lolly shop to Terry for 4 months could see the shelves stripped bare and all the kids running about in a sugar induced panic!
However the problem is that if an international candidate has been given the green light, it will likely be a high level person who will need a good 3 months or so to disconnect from his current organisation, empower a substitute and then relocate himself down under, a process which understandably takes several months, so it is a catch 22 situation.
If 'sleepy Terry' had half a brain he would see what is coming and start massaging his troops in preparation of the inbound new DAS by cutting loose all the driftwood, cleaning out the cupboards and mentally preparing his senior people for the changes that will occur when the new DAS hits the ground running. But of course this is all based on a lot of "iff's and maybe's" isn't it?

A Mike Smith did you say? Mmmmm that would certainly be good for Australian aviation, I just hope that he will be handed a top secret intelligence report relating to the GWM who will be his number one enemy and roadblock to real change.
Soteria is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2014, 00:40
  #2163 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
subliminal non specific...

Mike Smith has a major problem in that he is not from Cathay. Be this as it may, not all the following are from Cathay-Swire either;

Ronald McDonald.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2014, 06:47
  #2164 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Australia
Age: 32
Posts: 9
Spot on bro
False economy is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2014, 16:26
  #2165 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
Grrr oh dear


Mentioning Mike in the same post as that crowd of "all flash no substance" names is very revealing as to your perspicacity
scrubba is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2014, 22:05
  #2166 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Perspicacious indeed.

Naughty of Voltaire, I know, but it had to be done; Mike Smith is (IMO) one the very few men 'right' for the job; if he is not recruited as DAS then he should be 2IC; replacing some of the 'top trough' dwellers. IF, that is the reform is not to be another Pink Bat fiasco or another disgraceful airport smoke and mirrors debacle.

I expect the Senate will be interested to see if 'CASA' is ever going to allow the release of the TSBC report. The rumour is that the TSBC have released it; ATSB have seen it as has Truss, but 'CASA' are blocking the publication. Although why is a mystery; what TF has it to do with CASA or the Murky Machiavellian puppet master crew is beyond my humble reach. Normally a tale like that would be dismissed out of hand; but with so much going on behind closed doors, it's hard to know what to believe.

This is why there must be at least one honest man at the top table, just to keep the rest honest and I for one would trust Mike Smith to do exactly that. He's probably had a DCM by now, considering the dark powers at work in the underworld. The silly buggers have probably promoted one (if not both) of the GWM Wodgers in the sure and certain knowledge that embuggerance rules supreme at Sleepy Hollow.

Smoke, mirrors and pink bats to keep your arse warm – for all.

Toot toot.
Kharon is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2014, 01:16
  #2167 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 311
Mike Smith was told he is no longer in the running for the job.

Good luck Aviation Industry! You are going to need it!

A great opportunity squandered once again!
Dangly Bits is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2014, 08:23
  #2168 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Grrr DAS credibility

Dear Miniscule,

If Mike Smith has been considered not good enough for the DAS appointment , then be warned that the person you appoint must have demonstrably superior skills, knowledge and regulatory experience that are credible in the eyes of the industry if you are not about to embark on a second wave of dissent in the aviation regulatory space.

If you pick a dud, neither you nor your appointee will get any slack in the Parliament or the press...
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2014, 18:35
  #2169 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Is Truss the reincarnation of 'Elphy Bay'?

Flashman – by G.M. Fraser has long been one of my top 10 reads. Our erstwhile DPM reminds me of the Flashman description of General William Elphinstone. a.k.a. Elphy Bey. The parallels irresistibly draw the reader to the inevitable conclusion.

But I still state unhesitatingly, that for pure, vacillating stupidity, for superb incompetence to command, for ignorance combined with bad judgment --in short, for the true talent for catastrophe -- Elphy Bey stood alone. Others abide our question, but Elphy outshines them all as the greatest military idiot of our own or any other day.

Only he could have permitted the First Afghan War and let it develop to such ruinous defeat. It was not easy: he started with a good army, a secure position, some excellent officers, a disorganised enemy, and repeated opportunities to save the situation. But Elphy, with the touch of true genius, swept aside these obstacles with unerring precision, and out of order wrought complete chaos. We shall not, with luck, look upon his like again.

And later, when Elphy’s incompetence causes things to go from bad to worse to downright disastrous:

Possibly there has been a greater shambles in the history of warfare than our withdrawal from Kabul; probably there has not…I am at a loss for words to describe the superhuman stupidity, the truly monumental incompetence, and the bland blindness to reason of Elphy Bey and his advisers. If you had taken the greatest military geniuses of the ages, placed them in command of our army, and asked them to ruin it utterly as speedily as possible, they could not – I mean it seriously -- have done it as surely and swiftly as he did. And he believed he was doing his duty. The meanest sweeper in our train would have been a fitter commander.
You can see what I mean – the train wreck is occurring as we speak – the only mystery remaining is where will the wreckage lay when it stops. IF the unthinkable happens and there are almost 60 outstanding recommendations for reform, a damning Senate report and a damning Government report and a demeaning international report gathering dust on the minuscule's desk then the fall of a government would be inevitable.

You are being badly and deceitfully advised Minister; appoint Mike Smith with David Fawcett to oversight; and deal with the very real issues before disaster (in one form or another) strikes. Shirley there must be one of the 'inner circle' who can see through this flummery and advise the Minister that Pink Bats in the belfry may sound like one of those good ideas, but get it wrong and lives are lost.


Last edited by Kharon; 6th Sep 2014 at 18:41. Reason: Perhaps runways could be paved with pink bats – for soft landings?
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2014, 01:08
  #2170 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
'Bureaucracy virus' - home to roost.

Kharon - You are being badly and deceitfully advised Minister; appoint Mike Smith with David Fawcett to oversight; and deal with the very real issues before disaster (in one form or another) strikes. Shirley there must be one of the 'inner circle' who can see through this flummery and advise the Minister that Pink Bats in the belfry may sound like one of those good ideas, but get it wrong and lives are lost.
The fallout from the HIP RC is unlikely to claim any major public service heads (at least at the level of RED & his fellow Mandarins) but it is still not a good look:
Findings against public servants in royal commission ‘regrettable’

The royal commission says public servants should be examined for wrongdoing in the home insulation rollout. The Public Service Commission calls it “regrettable”.

The public service commissioner says it’s “regrettable” findings were made against senior public servants in the royal commission into home insulation. And the federal department responsible for the management of the botched pink batts program is examining the recommendations, including whether senior public servants should face action.
It has been the long held belief that the primary role of the Mandarins is to protect their Minister first & foremost, while administering the Government of the day's policy agenda. But has the HIP RC opened up a rift between Executive Government and the PS Mandarins? And as a consequence will Ministers now be looking more retrospectively at the proposed advisements from their senior bureaucrats??

So RED is probably high enough up the food chain to be filtered from any real scrutiny in the aftermath of the HIP RC but will he escape such scrutiny in certain other areas that fall within his remit??

It has been suggested that one major area of vulnerability for RED is Government leased airports. Since Senator Fawcett's first foray into Senate Estimates one of his major campaigns has been to expose this vulnerability of RED and his Department.

The following is a long passage of Hansard from the Supp Estimates from October 2011 but it is IMO important to put in full:
Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, a number of individuals and aviation associations have criticised—in fact, some have condemned in quite strong words—both the minister and the department for their handling of the issues around commercial development on Bankstown and Archerfield airports. I would like to know if you would make an opening statement about how you see the department's role in interacting with airport operators, the minister and CASA in terms of that process.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing what those comments are. I do not believe that those comments are in any way reflective of the regulatory arrangements and the actual situation at a number of airports, particularly those. I am aware of recent criticism of decisions, but I do not think that some of the media commentary reflects the facts.
In essence our role is set out in the act and also under the airport leases, which provide for the way in which we go about ensuring that the airport master plan provides for growth at the airports for aeronautical and non-aeronautical activity and to make sure that demand is being met. We also have a range of statutory requirements in relation to building control, environmental regimes and operations of the airport that we administer. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority obviously has responsibility for safety at the airports.
In relation to particular planning matters there are obviously differences of views at times between those of the airport operators in relation to development and those of some of the customers at that airport, particularly general aviation customers. I would characterise that at times as being robust, but I do not believe I would agree at any time that the act, the regs and the statutory requirements have not been met.
Senator FAWCETT: You mentioned that one of your requirements it to ensure the potential for growth. Are you referring there to growth in the aviation use of the airport or growth in the commercial use of the airport?
Mr Mrdak: Both. Our primary focus is to make sure the airports are available to provide facilities for aviation growth. That is the primary focus of the master planning process and the way in which we regulate the airports.
Senator FAWCETT: Perhaps if we go to a couple of examples that might help to unpack some of the concerns of industry. We will start with Archerfield and runway 28 right in particular. There have been some concerns in terms of the new corporate hangars and warbird hangars that have been built very close to runway 28 right and the impact that has in terms of instrument flight rules departures from that runway. One of the initial actions when that was raised was that the runway take-off distance available was shortened. If you look at the on-route supplement in the annexe at the rear, that restriction is still there. That starts to limit the type of aircraft that you can operate. If you are looking to operate a business jet or even something like a King Air 350, for example—which in Archerfield's case would need a weight exemption—that starts limiting rather than enhancing the growth of the airport. Can you explain that inconsistency for me?
Mr Mrdak: I am not sure there is. I will ask Mr Doherty to comment. I am certainly not aware that there has been any restriction on anyone's ability to operate from that field.
Senator FAWCETT: Shortening the runway is one heck of a restriction.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing whether that has actually in practice impacted on any operation, but I will ask Mr Doherty to comment on the specifics.
Mr Doherty: Certainly the intention would not be to allow a development which was going to restrict the nature of the operation. I am aware that there has been controversy over a couple of buildings at Archerfield and I understand that there was basically disagreement between experts as to the extent to which that may or may not affect the operations of some aircraft at that airport. My understanding was that the most recent exercise on that was a study by the ATSB that indicated that those structures were, in fact, not an issue, so there was not an ongoing program. I am interested to hear you say that the restriction is still reflected in the documentation. The way the process should work would be that, if the airport lessee proposes a development, if would go through a building control process and would be referred to the expert agencies—in this case particularly, Air Services and CASA—for them to comment on any possible interference with aviation operations. As I understand in that case, it must have been around the interpretation at that stage. While it was given the clearance at the time, I think there are others who felt subsequently that it should not have been. But as I said, I thought the latest on that episode was that the ATSB had had a close look at it and advised that they did not see this as a problem.
Senator FAWCETT: You are correct that the ATSB did do an investigation and you are correct that there was a difference of opinion; but, interestingly, the ATSB investigation appears to have made the same error of interpretation of the Manual of Standards part 139, which looks at obstacle clearances, in that there are actually two tables in the back of that chapter which determine clearance gradients required. They took table 7.1, which applies to approach and landing clearances, and table 7.1-2 applies to the take-off requirement and expands the runway width requirement from 150 to 180 metres. With that, the splay that then goes out puts those two buildings well and truly in the zone where it impacts on the capability to use that for departures.
Mr Doherty: I am not able to comment that—that is not an area within my expertise—but it may be a matter that you can take up with ATSB.
CHAIR: Rather than spending the next 20 minutes inquiring, is this the place for Senator Fawcett to ask the questions about his concerns or is it ATSB?
Senator FAWCETT: If I can continue, all I am doing is highlighting an example. We have had the secretary tell us that everything is rosy. I have three or four examples where quite clearly the process of checking, verification and independent audit of the advice, whether it is given by the airport operator, by a consultant or by CASA in some cases has not been taken up and acted on appropriately by the department. That is the issue at hand, so all that detail was merely an example where due diligence has not been applied to a process and the end result is operational restrictions on people at the airport, which flies directly in the face of the stated intention of providing paths for growth for the airport.
CHAIR: Okay. This is fantastic. From a truckie to a test pilot, I do not mind what you do. What I am trying to say is we are not going to sit here all night if there is a quicker way of you getting answers. I am just going to put it to you that way. So I go back to my original question: are we in the right area?
Mr Mrdak: I think there are a range of issues Mr Doherty has been discussing with the senator. I think we need to have a look at what the senator wishes to put forward.
Mr Wolfe: I may add something. With regard to those particular claims that you have indicated in relation to the ATSB advice, my understanding is that the ATSB has responded to those claims, so I would definitely suggest you take it up with the ATSB.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, let us have a look at the runway and safety area at the end of runway 28 right. You talked about the fact that there is a building inspector who works for the federal government, who is supposed to be involved as part of that development process. In fact the Archerfield Airport Corporation on their website when they talk about developments, very clearly lay out the criteria that should trigger the involvement of a federal agency, and the auction site which has been built in that safety area—or just over the road but still in the area concerned—was not referred—and please correct me if I am wrong—to the building inspector. The airport made their own determination that the site, which was a hardstand for the purpose of auctioning and selling large trucks and machinery and those sorts of things, did not constitute something that they needed to actually involve the federal government in.
Speaking as a professional pilot—and, thankfully, most of my aviation experience in single-engine aircraft means that I have had an ejection seat—if I have a large obstacle in front of me and the engine fails, I can leave the aircraft. The people on the ground will suffer the consequences. In this case part of the requirement in place is that the Queensland government has identified public safety areas around the runway ends.
CHAIR: If there is a question, Senator Fawcett, I would urge you to get to it, please.
Senator FAWCETT: My question is: why are the checks and balances not in place to make sure that when things occur that impact operations on airports which still come under Commonwealth or, where by lease, Commonwealth control, that the airport operator does actually refer things? And, if the subsequent activities on that land break state regulations, why are the checks and balances not there to make sure that we are supporting safe operations at airports? The Commonwealth has said that it wants to work with the state, and the minister has said in his recent speeches that he wishes to integrate more with the state and make sure we work with them. Clearly, the system has broken down in this case.
Mr Doherty: We may need to look more closely at the particular case, but my understanding is that, yes, there is a Queensland policy relating to public safety zones, and certainly in the white paper and beyond we are keen to have that reflected in planning particularly on the airport but also off-airport to the extent that it can. Those policies operate in different ways to define an area within which activity should be restricted because of the risk of exposing either the aircraft or persons on the ground to the risk of damage and, while it might be slight, it becomes a problem.
It does not work as a complete prohibition, however. There may be a range of activities which are still permissible in that area if they do not involve bringing a large concentration of people. So while it might be inappropriate to have a large shopping centre or something like that which involves congregating large groups of people, it may be quite appropriate to have a longstay car park or something which does not involve having large groups of people there at one time.
My understanding of that case is that it has been looked at and that the nature of the activity conducted there does not infringe the public safety zone policy. But it is something that we can take further advice on.
Senator FAWCETT: I would ask you to, and to take that on notice. Certainly what is there, and there is photographic evidence of it being there—large pieces of plant as well as many members of the public attending auctions at that location—is problematical. As you read both the Queensland legislation and the federal, the obligation is a two-way street. One is to protect people on the ground—and there was an accident adjacent to that location a number of years ago when the pilot, and four people working in a factory, were killed when an aircraft crashed. There is also the obligation to the aircraft and its pilot and passengers to provide safety in a zone which is one of the most critical areas. US studies show that about 80 per cent of accidents occur in that area on takeoff, or landing when there is an undershoot, if you have an engine failure. The obligation is on your department to make sure that we provide a safe area around airports so that in the event of an emergency the pilots do have somewhere to land. It is not like military aircraft with ejection seats and the options to try and turn back. Civilians are constrained—
CHAIR: Senator Fawcett, I will remind you that if there is a question would you please come to it. The questions are very important, but I do not honestly believe we need all the preamble. You have the call and I urge you to get to the question.
Mr Wilson: We will take the issue with regard to the end zone at Archerfield on notice and provide the committee with a detailed response.
Senator FAWCETT: About the process: there was a repcon in Flight Safety Australia recently, which looked at the issue of building approvals again, this time well away from the airport. But things that affect what are called the PANS-OPS clearance requirements for aircraft that are in IFR—so they cannot see. What became very clear in that repcon was that as the redacted report went to different agencies the airport operators said, 'It is up to CASA'. And CASA said, 'We can't, actually—it's up to the department'. The department came back and said, 'Look, processes are in place'. But we have seen over the years that rather than saying, 'No, you can't build a building, because that actually infringes the requirements,' the building has gone ahead and instead there has been a reactive approach where the gradients and flight settings increase.
Senator Carr: Be fair. The minister put out a white paper on these issues, the first that had ever actually been produced by the Commonwealth. It outlined the procedures with regard to planning for development around airports. You have raised some issues with regard to one site, which the department has undertaken to have a look at. But I do think we have to get this in context; none of this work was ever done before.
Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?
Mr Doherty: There is work on foot on this. We do take the protection of those services very seriously. There is the OLS relating to visual flight and the PANS-OPS relating to instrument flight. The PANS-OPS is seen as non-negotiable; there is no scope for an intrusion into the PANS-OPS for any particular time.
We have provisions in the Commonwealth legislation which are designed to provide notice of proposed buildings which would go close to the controlled surface, to allow those to be assessed and to make a judgement. We are currently working with a group of state officials to try to do a couple of things. One is to make sure that those sorts of controls are expanded properly into airports which are not controlled under the Commonwealth's Airports Act provisions. And secondly, to make sure that we have robust arrangements in place for how they are administered. So we are keen to work on making sure that we have the right arrangements in place to make sure those are given effect to. We agree with you: those are extremely important.
Senator FAWCETT: I think if you look into it—and again, I am happy to be corrected—I believe that there are at least two examples in Brisbane and Sydney where the PANS-OPS base has been increased as a result of buildings that have gone up and have not been blocked, even though under our ICAO obligations we are supposed to. I encourage you to look into that and, if I could put that on notice to come back to me—
Mr Wilson: If you could put those two examples on notice that would be helpful.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly.
The Fawcett QONs and RED's answers can be read HERE

We then jump to the Supp Estimates for 2012 where DF began with this...

"...I will just distribute this map. Mr Mrdak, I am sure you would be disappointed if I did not come back to the issue of leased airports and the lot of operators on airports versus airport use..."

And if you thought that with the Coalition winning government that party politic may force DF to blunt his Airports campaign think again...

The parallels between the HIP RC disturbing findings against the PS and the apparent Dept obfuscation of Govt leased airports, may seem tenuous but there is no doubt that Senator Fawcett will not let up till it is sorted, & hopefully before an RC is called...


Ps Hmm...I hear Barnaby, DF & NX are very close??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 09:08
  #2171 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
TSBC peer review report - Shame for Truss also.

From Kharon's - SHAME for Truss.
At the moment the CASA is staring down a damning report from a Senate committee, which through the investigation of one small incident uncovered a nightmare web of deception, incompetence, 'flexibility' of standards and a total disregard of expert advice. Notwithstanding the flagrant disregard for due process, protocol and the law the most sinister aspect of CASA process was revealed – a willingness to cloud over or cover up the absolute shambles. There can, from the evidence provided, be seen a clear trail of collusion, second agenda and the absolutely crystal clear intention of the manager overseeing the process to manipulate the investigation to suit a predetermined outcome. On May 23, 2013 the Senate released a damning report which, supported by an acknowledged aviation expert, made 26 serious, far reaching recommendations for reform of the regulator, which have simply been ignored by the current Minister, the CASA board and CASA.

And in an earlier post the Ferryman revealed (if true) a very disturbing rumour...:
I expect the Senate will be interested to see if 'CASA' is ever going to allow the release of the TSBC report. The rumour is that the TSBC have released it; ATSB have seen it as has Truss, but 'CASA' are blocking the publication. Although why is a mystery; what TF has it to do with CASA or the Murky Machiavellian puppet master crew is beyond my humble reach. Normally a tale like that would be dismissed out of hand; but with so much going on behind closed doors, it's hard to know what to believe.
A mystery indeed... Also passing strange is how the ATsB 'go to' man, who was tasked with keeping all interested parties updated with the progress of the TSBC peer review, has from all reports suddenly gone mute?? Ironically this individual also heads up the ATsB Public Interest Disclosure scheme, see here:

A public interest disclosure can be reported to any of the following authorised officers in the ATSB:For more information about the making a public interest disclosure involving the ATSB, please contact Wayne Artuso, Governance Manager, by phone 02 6274 6595 or 1800 020 616 or email [email protected]
Oh well whatever FF (and by association M&M) are trying to cover up, there is no doubt in my mind that the TSBC report cannot be stellar in it's appraisal of the ATsBeaker...

Despite the attempts of obfuscation, by parties outside of our supposedly independent AAI, the TSBC report will eventually have to be released, after all the TSBC have a seriously stellar reputation to uphold...

Finally it should again be highlighted that it is within the power of the miniscule to force the release of the TSBC report.

Shame on you miniscule..SHAME!

Last edited by Sarcs; 9th Sep 2014 at 11:57. Reason: Love it Soty old son!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 11:11
  #2172 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Should the Canadians publish the TSBC report in Canada?

Sarcs, if Truss won't release the TSBC report, perhaps this deceitful act can be leveraged off? You see, it cost the Canucks money to prepare and carry out their audit of the ATSBeaker. They then had to expend resources writing the final report, and the airfares, accommodation, travel allowances, mini bar bills and stuffed miniature kangaroos will have cost the Canucks a specific sum of their own taxpayer monies would it not? And even if the ATSBeaker footed the bill, the Canucks still had to send their people down under for a set period of time, disadvantaging their own department. So with that in mind, wouldn't the Canadian taxpayer want to see some evidential results of the trip down under, such as an audit report? Don't they want to see exactly what it was that their tax money was being used for? Regardless of what our Minister of coverups is doing here, why don't the Canucks release the audit report on their own website? Makes me wonder whether unlike in Australia, the Canadians have some sympathetic or even interested media outlets or industry people who would be interested in seeing the report and results of what their people did when down under? Surely the Canadians, who have learned a lot of lessons and have lead the field in aviation safety have their own international IOS affiliates?

Now wouldn't that be embarrassing if the Canucks apparent gesture of good will turned into an international bonfire? Oh dear, we know how much Governments hate bad press and hate bad relationships between normally friendly nations.
What do you think Minister, should the Australian chapter of the IOS take their concerns about your tactics of burying important and critical reports to a new level and commence a campaign for transparency upon our Canadian neighbours?
Soteria is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 03:07
  #2173 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Thumbs up Shame the Canucks??

Top idea Soty…:
What do you think Minister, should the Australian chapter of the IOS take their concerns about your tactics of burying important and critical reports to a new level and commence a campaign for transparency upon our Canadian neighbours?
Apparently, unlike our mob, the Canucks are big on transparency and accountability, example: Core Control Audit of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada January 2013

“…Canadians expect the federal government to be well managed and to be accountable for the prudent stewardship of public funds; the safeguarding of public assets; and the effective, efficient, and economical use of public resources. They also expect reliable and transparent reporting on how the government spends public funds to achieve results for Canadians.

The Financial Administration Act designates deputy heads as accounting officers for their department or agency. As accounting officers, deputy heads are accountable for ensuring that resources are organized to deliver departmental objectives in compliance with government policy and procedures; ensuring that there are effective systems of internal control; signing departmental accounts; and performing other specific duties assigned by law or regulation to the administration of their department or agency.

Core Control Audits are important as they provide deputy heads with assurance on the effectiveness of core controls over financial management in their respective organizations. By doing so, Core Control Audits inform deputy heads of their organization’s level of compliance with key requirements contained in selected financial legislation, policies, and directives…”

Not to mention the TSBC fiercely protect their independence and adhere strenuously to their mission mandate:

The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act provides the legal framework that governs TSB activities. Our mandate is to advance transportation safety in the marine, pipeline, rail and air modes of transportation by
  • conducting independent investigations, including public inquiries when necessary, into selected transportation occurrences in order to make findings as to their causes and contributing factors;
  • identifying safety deficiencies, as evidenced by transportation occurrences;
  • making recommendations designed to eliminate or reduce any such safety deficiencies; and
  • reporting publicly on our investigations and on the findings in relation thereto.
As part of its ongoing investigations, the TSB also reviews developments in transportation safety and identifies safety risks that it believes government and the transportation industry should address to reduce injury and loss.
To instill confidence in the public regarding the transportation accident investigation process, it is essential that an investigating agency be independent and free from any conflicts of interest when investigating accidents, identifying safety deficiencies, and making safety recommendations. As such, the TSB is an independent agency, separate from other government agencies and departments, that reports to Parliament through the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Our independence enables us to be fully objective in making findings as to causes and contributing factors, and in making transportation safety recommendations.

In making its findings as to the causes and contributing factors of a transportation occurrence, it is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability. However, the Board does not refrain from fully reporting on the causes and contributing factors merely because fault or liability might be inferred from the Board’s findings. No finding of the Board should be construed as assigning fault or determining civil or criminal liability. Findings of the Board are not binding on the parties to any legal, disciplinary, or other proceedings. Soteria who do you propose we pitch the IOS request to?? Any ideas??


ps Soteria top handle....but I would never have guessed you to be female..:
SOTERIA was the goddess or spirit (daimon) of safety, and of deliverance and preservation from harm.

Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 03:18
  #2174 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,767
The Canadians pulled no punches in the recent report into the 737 CFIT...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 03:38
  #2175 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Indeed Bloggsy and they're not going to let up on their SR being adequately addressed either..:
News release
Voluntary approach to address recommendation from the 2011 Resolute Bay air accident may not go far enough

Gatineau, Quebec, 2 September 2014 — The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) today released its assessment of Transport Canada’s response to Recommendation A14-01, made following the release of the investigation report (A11H0002) into the 20 August 2011 controlled flight into terrain of a Boeing 737 in Resolute Bay, Nunavut. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and an ensuing post-crash fire. Eight passengers and all four crew members died, and three passengers were seriously injured.

In this accident, the aircraft arrived high and fast on final approach, was not configured for landing on a timely basis, had not intercepted the localizer, and was diverging to the right. This approach was not considered stabilized in accordance with the company’s stabilized approach criteria, and the situation required a go-around. Instead, the approach was continued. When the crew initiated a go-around, it was too late to avoid the impact with terrain. The Board recommended that Transport Canada require operators of large commercial aircraft (Canadian Aviation Regulations [CARs] Subpart 705 operators) to monitor and reduce the incidence of unstable approaches that continue to a landing.

In response, Transport Canada issued a Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA) in which Subpart 705 operators are encouraged to use their safety management systems (SMS) to identify the incidence of unstable approaches and to develop mitigation measures for the risks they pose.

Additionally, the CASA referenced the voluntary use of flight data monitoring (FDM) in order to gain a greater understanding of unstable approaches and the causes. The CASA was also distributed to Subpart 703 and 704 operators (smaller air carriers) to encourage voluntary participation in mitigation activity. In June 2015, Transport Canada will commence follow-up surveillance activity with operators to see what measures have been put in place to mitigate the risk. Operators who indicate they do not have a problem will be asked to substantiate this

“Unstable approaches continue to be a high risk to safe flight operations in Canada and worldwide,” said Kathy Fox, Chair of the TSB. “Although TC’s Safety Alert is a positive step, it will be some time before the effectiveness of this voluntary approach can be validated.”

The Board noted that SMS has been in place for several years for Subpart 705 operators, yet the incidence of unstable approaches has not been effectively addressed. As well, if a flight data monitoring program is not required by the regulator, operators may not have the data to assess the risk to their operation posed by unstable approaches. Therefore, the Board has assessed the response to Recommendation A14-01 as Satisfactory in Part and it will continue to monitor progress.

The TSB is an independent agency that investigates marine, pipeline, railway and aviation transportation occurrences. Its sole aim is the advancement of transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.

For more information, contact:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Media Relations
Quite amusing is the Canucks interpretation for CASA - Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA)...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 21:07
  #2176 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Brinkmanship – on a razors edge.

Soteria –"Now wouldn't that be embarrassing if the Canucks apparent gesture of good will turned into an international bonfire?
Sarcs – "Not to mention the TSBC fiercely protect their independence and adhere strenuously to their mission mandate."
Bloggs –"The Canadians pulled no punches in the recent report into the 737 CFIT."
So why then is the TSBC report not published and gathering dust along with the AAI and ASSR reports on the miniscule's desk. In combination they add up to a very real, ugly issue against the national interest; just on a fiscal level alone. The long suffering fare and tax paying public should be asking awkward questions. The money pumped through the 'safety pipeline' running to waste is a national disgrace and with every family feeling the pinch I'm certain that funding to could be put to a better purpose.

If Truss isn't man enough to do the job and won't hire a man like Mike Smith who will, perhaps it's time to start asking for the Truss resignation; before broken Abbott promises becomes the opposition theme song, after the next 'incident'.

Tick tock - Toot toot.

Last edited by Kharon; 10th Sep 2014 at 21:28. Reason: Bloggs #1244 – not me chum. Strict liability offence, fined 1 Choc frog.
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 22:12
  #2177 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383

I think Sunny may have hit the nail on the head in the "Wuss" thread.

Could it be "Wusses" minder has evoked "National security" as a reason not to release the Canook report?

Wonder how the punters would feel about "National Security" being cynically invoked to cover up bureaucratic deficiencies that could have a profound affect on their Safety??

Oh!..sorry, CAsA do that all the time don't they, invoking "Safety" to cover up bureaucratic deficiencies.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 23:00
  #2178 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Balance of probability.

The Senate committee must, by now be fully informed as to what's going on. We must just hope (or encourage) that their wonderings lead them to the inevitable conclusion; they're being done over by the same crowd they publicly exposed as charlatans.

The same crowd which mislead, obfuscated and 'file stuffed' their merry way through the AAI review now have recruited another ally, one with power and influence in their campaign to demonstrate that the Senate is a eunuch. The Senate report was damning, the Forsyth report, in a very subtle manner, even more so. It is reasonable to assume that the TSBC report on the ATSB is equally condemning.

The longer the TSBC report is delayed, the more alarmed the Australian public must be, not so much for their collective safety in the air, but for the inability Australia has to correct the flaws and minimise the risks of maintaining that safety standard.

What concerns me and should concern the TSBC is that the Canadian integrity can be so easily compromised and their charter as quickly confounded at the request of a foreign government, one desperately trying to convince the world to 'move along' – nothing to see here'. Probably played the 'national interest card' at some diplomatic tea party which soothed the fat cats but is driving the TSBC coal face troops nuts.

Soteria –"What do you think Minister, should the Australian chapter of the IOS take their concerns about your tactics of burying important and critical reports to a new level and commence a campaign for transparency upon our Canadian neighbours?".
If Truss and his minions get away with this despicable cover up Australian standards will achieve a new all time low, fully supported by the Government minister who was too either to scared to care, too under the thumb to listen; or, just too idle to act – subjugated by and subservient to faceless public servants. This, by the by, emasculates the Senate, rendering the committee not only nugatory but irrelevant to the aftermath of the future incidents. The last line of defence undermined.

What makes the minuscule think that report has not been seen or even "edited" by the likes of 'independent' analysts ?. Is there not, within the camaraderie of 'safety experts' a system of peer review?; prior to publication – for 'proof reading', 'editorial' purposes and the like. Either the Canadians publish or; someone else will – hopefully in the international media. With egg-on-face for the Canucks who sold out to the Australians who bought it.

The TSBC report is every bit as damning as the Forsyth and Senate reports. They know it; the world knows it; how to cover it all up remains the sole question.

I wish 'them' the best of luck with that; burnt metal and high media drama, like flowers around a lamppost fade into irrelevance; as they must. But the notion of 'who's to bless and who's to blame' lives on, it lives long; hard and resolutely. Publish or perish is a universal maxim.

Selah..-.- &....
Kharon is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2014, 02:19
  #2179 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Sunday cogitation - " VH-IOS clear to backtrack!"

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, I do. When will we get the TSB review of the ATSB? In the next couple of weeks? When do you expect that to be?

Mr Dolan : My colleague Ms Tadros, the chair of the Transportation Safety Board, indicated to me two weeks ago that she expected that a draft would be complete and available to the ATSB for its consideration and factual input by the end of this month but that it was unlikely, given their internal processes, a final report would be available before the end of June.

Senator XENOPHON: So it is a bit later than you expected—and that is the draft. When you say 'factual input', does it mean that you have an opportunity to comment on the conclusions of the TSB?

Mr Dolan : The TSB have made it quite clear that their conclusions will be their conclusions and that they would be addressed in us confirming the factual content of the report to make sure that they have described our processes and other facts correctly.

Senator XENOPHON: Has the TSB provided a briefing to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review?

Mr Dolan : So I understand.

Senator XENOPHON: The ATSB was not present at that?
Mr Dolan : No, I believe it was in Ottawa.

Senator XENOPHON: You will have an opportunity to respond formally to the TSB's report. Is that right?

Mr Dolan : We will have an opportunity to comment on the factual content of a draft report. The report will then, after consideration by the TSB board, be published by the TSB. But since the report was to examine our processes and see where they could be improved, clearly we will have to respond to any findings or recommendations of the report.

Senator XENOPHON: So the draft report, the response to the draft and the final report and the ATSB's response to the final report are all documents that will be released publicly? Is that the case?

Mr Dolan : I do not believe our response to the draft report on matters of fact will necessarily be made public. It would not be the normal way of doing these things, but certainly anything we make public in terms of our response to findings or recommendations of the final report will be made public.
Okay if we concede, barring any political collusion, that the process as described has been adhered to and from discrete inquiries, (with the exception of a few more process delays) this is in fact what has happened then we can expect the TSBC to publish the review report within the next couple of weeks on their website...

However the questions that remain are did the DRAFT report while being checked for factual accuracy etc. get leaked to other parties example; the miniscule, the Dept or indeed the Senate Committee??

Hopefully not otherwise there would be further serious questions on whether the State (miniscule & his Dept) are upholding their responsibilities to Annex 19 to protect the integrity of the State AAI as being supposedly independent & not influenced by any other Govt aviation safety agencies...

Next question is has the DRAFT findings of the TSBC and indeed the Senate AAI report & ASRR report had any effect on the ATsB and how they go about business i.e. have they learnt from the lessons of the past?? Time will ultimately tell but the first indications are not that reassuring...

Back tracking to this post from Kharon:
Nearly under the radar.

Why was this - ATSB - report delayed 30 months? and why was it released under the white noise coverage of Qantas and Virgin reports? Standing alone there is nothing overtly sensitive, except the incident was Feb 2012 the Senate inquiry started in October. It is noteworthy that no SR issued at the time, which is really the main duty of ATSB. But at least another, fluffy politically correct report was issued - eventually.
Benefit of the doubt (& as Kharon alludes); maybe this report was lost in all the 'white noise' emanating from the Senate AAI inquiry and the bureau has simply missed it until now...

Which is a shame because there is some real lessons to be learnt from this investigation and it would appear that ASA proactively attempted to mitigate any future safety risk and they deserve some kudos for this. Unfortunately through the passage of time and the BASR philosophy the true value of the lessons learnt are lost in translation perhaps forever.

MTF...(with another example that has disturbing parallels to the PelAir FRMS cover up)...

Comment: One wonders if the TSBC or NTSB had of been tasked with investigating the incident AO-2012-029 whether; (a) it would of taken over 30 months to publish a final report or; (b) whether the safety issues highlighted would have automatically necessitated a 'back to reason' promulgation of an SR?? Instead our bureau (with their BASR methodology) have sat on the 'safety issues' highlighted and have not even published, as a 'safety issue', on their website...

Last edited by Sarcs; 16th Sep 2014 at 00:37.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2014, 07:59
  #2180 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Part two - Of lessons learnt but not heeded.

The Kharon post here linked to Ben’s article - Is the Pel-Air cover-up going to drag on forever? Which indeed is a good question, much like the RRP will the obfuscation, embuggerance, pineappling & victimisation of minor IOS players, continue unabated until the inevitable extinction of the GA industry or smoking black hole finally grabs the attention of the travelling public and the MSM??

Ben makes the point:
Much depends on candid and fearless disclosure of the truth about the botched Pel-Air inquiry. For the Minister, for his department, for CASA, the ATSB, and the TSB of Canada, and not least, for those injured and damaged by this avoidable accident.

Before I launch into - Part two- it is worth reflecting on a section of MQ’s testimony in the 22 October 2012 Senate AAI inquiry hearing…

"...Yes. It got very personal. I use the term 'pendulum'; the pendulum has now swung from one of adverse tension that was not producing the sort of outcomes that the aviation safety industry wants to completely the opposite way, where I believe those two organisations are basically acting as one....It is a professional thing and it is a big part of the aviation industry that there be transparency and that these two organisations have very specific roles under their acts, and that seems to have diminished...”

Ok the next example starts with this recently released report AO-2013-010. Again the report seems to have taken an inordinate amount of time (over 18 months) to complete given the relative (transparent) complexities involved?? However unlike the previous report this one does go to the trouble of highlighting a 'safety issue'; and eventually (22 August 2014) the bureau published this SI on their website..: AO-2013-010-SI-01

Although one does wonder if this only happened because CAsA, for some bizarre reason, decided to put in their 2 bob's worth into a 'safety issue', that for all intents & purposes, had been resolved:
Although not in response to this occurrence, on 28 March 2013 the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released revised fatigue management and flight and duty time requirements in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Instrument 2013. These requirements were to take effect for existing operators on 30 April 2016.

The revised CAO 48.1 stated that, for air transport operations, an operator had to comply with a set of limits and requirements (dependent on the type of operation) or operate to a fatigue risk management system (FRMS), if that FRMS was approved by CASA.

If an operator was not using a CASA-approved FRMS, CAO 48.1 stated that a flight crew member (FCM) must not be assigned or commence a flight duty period at home base unless, within the 12 hours immediately before commencing the duty period, they had at least 8 hours consecutive sleep opportunity. For a duty period commencing away from home base, the 8-hours sleep opportunity must be provided within the previous 10 hours. Sleep opportunity was defined as:

a period of time during an off-duty period when an FCM:
(a) is not meeting the reasonable requirements of bodily functioning such as eating, drinking, toileting, washing and dressing; and
(b) has access to suitable sleeping accommodation without, under normal circumstances, being interrupted by any requirement of the AOC [Air Operator’s Certificate] holder.

Compared to the previous standard industry exemption to CAO 48, the revised CAO 48.1 also provided more restrictions regarding the length of duty periods associated with early starts.
As we all know the introduction of CAO 48.1 has been the subject of much contention by Senator X (& some major pilot unions); it should also not be forgotten that 48.1 is effectively a wedge in the RRP, which hopefully will be resolved beyond yet another legislative instrument sometime in the next two decades...

Now for the parallels with the PelAir debacle, to begin remember this??

Senator Fawcett: “…With all due respect, Mr McCormick that complete answer had no relevance to the point that I raised. Everything you have said is quite possibly correct, but it has no relevance to the point that your own internal investigation indicated that CASA's oversight of the Fatigue Risk Management System at Pel-Air was inadequate…”

Some 21 months before the Pel-Air Norfolk Is ditching CAsA conducted a ‘Special Audit’ of Pel-Air’s CAR 217, for that audit report see here. In the course of conducting that audit CAsA discovered a serious non-compliance in regards to the training required for the company’s FRMS, this NCN led to the issuance of a ‘Safety Alert’:
CAR 217 Training and Checking Organisation - Fatigue Risk Management System(FRMS)

The company's Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) was approved by CASA on the
30th April2007. Operations conducted under this FRMS require training for all flight crewsprior to them being rostered for operational duty. The audit of the CAR 217 organisation'sflight crew training records revealed that while flight crews had been operating under theFRMS for 11 months, the FRMS training required had not been conducted. This noncompliancewas considered to represent an immediate threat to the safety of operations andCASA issued a 'Safety Alert' on the 12th March 2008 which required operations conductedunder the FRMS to cease and operations to be conducted in accordance with CA048.
Apparently the company responded proactively…

“…The company accepted CASA's decision and advised CASA on the 17th March 2008 that the required training had been completed. CASA responded on the 18th March 2008 by issuing approval for the company to resume operations in accordance with the FRMS…”

The audit report concluded with this recommendation (page 5):
Given the fact that the company provide training and checking for 70 pilots it is important in the interest of operational safety for PEL management to resolve the issues stated in this report and establish more effective and frequent internal audit of the conduct and recording of the training and checking of flight crew. Given the number of pilots currently employed and the company's proposed expansion into the SAAB 340 aircraft, a review of the current workload of the Chief Pilot and Head of Training and Checking's should also be considered.
{Note: The CAsA evaluation on page 6-7 is also worth reading, especially in light of the findings in the AAI inquiry}

Eventually the company CAR 217 (& FRMS) was given a reasonable bill of health (a tick & flick) with the addition of a CAsA caveat that they would be ‘closely monitoring’…

“..The Safety Alert was lifted flight crew were trained and they are currently operating under their FRMS. Management have been cooperative and the REX Board have launched an internal inquiry to ensuring a breach does not occur again. SYD Region is satisfied and are closely monitoring the operation…”

But then we had the ditching of VH-NGA and another ‘Special Audit’ with further damning findings highlighted in Ben Cook’s FRMS SAR.

Ahh…but don’t worry the company put in place and actioned a MAP that CAsA again ‘closely monitored’ and all is well again…

One word BOLLOCKS!

Until such time that we see positive proof that the ATsB has retreated from its current BASR approach and is prepared to (when required) hand out the proverbial pineapple; then the IOS will continue to ‘closely monitor’ all reports and propaganda being published by the bureau and CAsA with a suspicious eye…


{Note for Beaker: Pineapples are not meant to be served as wedges decorating the sides of frosted cocktail glasses at some politically correct ‘love in’, organised by ATsBeaker…}

Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.