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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 21st Sep 2014, 22:27
  #2201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I'm unsure who the NZ Minister for Aviation is, if in fact there is one, but whoever, he and his lot have just been given a resounding pat on the back for a job well done in the weekend elections.


Says something about the Kiwi mindset as well.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 21st Sep 2014 at 22:28. Reason: When youre on a good thing stick to it! (trade mark protected perhaps).
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2014, 14:40
  #2202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Unhappy Follow the links - 'Fat dumb but unhappy!'

Kharon - Sarcs has headed down the research path I believe he'll take, the thinking man may glean some insight into why the NZ CAA is light years ahead of not only Australia, but of many other enlightened countries in the way they have progressed aviation, not just 'safety'; but in the regulatory and fiscal fields, resulting in increased efficiency naturally leading to improved safety outcomes..
It is not much of a research path really, merely some observations made along the way to enlightenment perhaps...


For a small nation geographically & population wise NZed certainly punches above it's weight..


Comparisons can not only be made in Rugby, the Kiwis also excel in aviation, just take a look at the financials for Air NZ v our majors; or in GA versus our slowly but surely suffocation of a once thriving industry (pre 1990s)...


So what is the difference??

It cannot simply be about a better written, more easily read and understood rule set; there has to be a lot more to it than that??

Part of the problem for Oz aviation is we have drifted, over now a good many years, into a third world mentality of complacency living off the fat of the land and extreme mineral wealth, none of which the Kiwis had in the first place. We are also encumbered by several extra layers of bureaucracy that the Kiwis simply don't have to deal with...

It was pointed out in the Forsyth report that Performance Based Regulation (PBR) is the new mantra for NAA world’s best practice in aviation regulation, a philosophy that best fosters & nurtures an essential industry for any nation’s economic benefit.

From executive summary ASRR report:
Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices. On occasions, individual operators may push the boundaries and require close regulatory oversight and a firm regulatory response. An effective risk-based regulator will judge when a hard line is necessary.

A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.
This PBR philosophy has been very quickly adopted by the UK and is currently a work in progress. Which brings about a strange dichotomy because we like the UK have a conservative government with a policy of cutting red tape, yet our government seems loathe to implement a PBR approach to our aviation rule set?? Perhaps the AMROBA news article - Delays and International Practices - best tries to fathom this disconnection:
Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.

CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.

The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.

CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).

CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”

The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.

PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.

Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system…

The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.

To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected…
None of which seems to be a problem for the Kiwis who, from all reports, has an industry that is going gang-busters and has been doing so long before EASA & ICAO started singing the praises of PBR.

And that is where the two requests for assistance from CAANZ to our very own ATSB comes in, so here goes my follow the links...

To begin from those reports the NZed system for AAI is very unique in that the CAA also holds the responsibility for the receiving of incident/accident reports, while also being responsible for overseeing the investigation according to ICAO Annex 13. Sometimes they delegate the carriage of the investigation to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) but not always, as is evident in the Baron tragedy.

From AE-2013-023:
Further information on the CAA investigation, including an interim factual report on the occurrence can be found on the CAA website, at
www.caa.govt.nz, and
www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/N254F-interim.pdf
Click on the top link, then click on Accidents and Incidents.

Next go to the RHS index of links & click on Policy and Rules and go down to the heading Government Support and click on Civil Aviation Act Review.

This brings up a Ministry Transport webpage which is well worth reading and begins to paint the picture on how & why NZed, like the ALL BLACKs, are light years ahead of us and most of the world when it comes to State aviation safety oversight & regulation.

Finally click on the link in the middle of this extremely refreshing text:
In addition, over the past 20 years, significant change has occurred within government and throughout the international aviation industry. Some of the changes are:
· the flourishing of New Zealand’s aviation business. About $9.7 billion of revenue is now earned by the aviation industry each year – almost as much as the $10.4 billion earned from the country’s dairy industry . The government expects the industry to continue to be a major contributor to economic growth. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the Act is not unnecessarily constraining aviation business in New Zealand and across the globe
· the government’s ‘Better Regulation, Less Regulation’ (external link) initiative. The review is a response to finding new ways of tackling transport regulation to ensure it is of high quality and implemented in a cost-effective manner
· the Civil Aviation Authority has moved to a more proactive, risk-based approach to aviation regulation. It is implementing a change programme to improve regulatory quality, service delivery, and efficiency and effectiveness. The review provides an opportunity to ensure the Act can support the Civil Aviation Authority to achieve its change programme
· the international aviation industry is changing rapidly due to increased demand for services, improved technology, the increasing cost of jet fuel and environmental concerns. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the regulatory framework supports the needs of a dynamic sector
You can see from this government treasury webpage that the Kiwis had adopted a PBR & red tape reduction policy long before it even hit the radar of most progressive first world countries…

Hmm…meanwhile in our world the out of control big “R” regulator continues to dictate & rule the roost with an archaic, draconian mind-set that threatens to decimate our once proud GA industry…

TICK..TOCK miniscule time to wake up or shove off!

ps miniscule Ben has some questions for you that the IOS think you should answer ASAP...: Pel-Air: Is 2nd rate crash report good enough for Australia?

pps This comment says it all really...
Minister Truss writes in the Courier-Mail (Letters to Editor, 22/9/14) this morning about CASA and Angel Flight. Amongst other things he writes that “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”

ATSB has similar status so I assume that his advice is that he cannot direct it on safety matters either.
MTF…

Last edited by Sarcs; 22nd Sep 2014 at 15:06.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2014, 20:50
  #2203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Time and patience.

Or, T&P if you like. The sterling effort from brother Sarcs above took lots of both; a good job well done and thank you. After reading that, I'm left to wonder how CASA is going to deal with the sniggers and snide remarks made at those expensive international shin-digs.

I can imagine the worlds best, nudging each other as the 'entertainment' shows up; laughing quietly up its collective sleeve at the posturing and pretence exhibited when team Australia stands up, beating its chest and claiming to be a well respected member of the NAA club. It's a very good thing they have Truss conned; for no one else will believe them.

Same-same Beaker – a trend setter, with his very own Beyond Reason approach; listened to politely in public and the subject of derision and ridicule in private. How long before the world NAA begin to publicly humiliate this country? and how long before they start to think that perhaps, with Australia doggedly clinging to a stone age mentality, there may be an accident with some of their nationals on board and take steps to protect their people; even if it's just from the insurance companies.

I find I have neither time nor patience for this bloody awful creature; who claims to be a concerned member of parliament, a champion of the bush and dare even appear in public, claiming to be the final authority on transport. I find it hard to believe that a fully paid minister of the crown can stand up, in public and declare 'he' has no control of CASA. He's the minister for crying out loud; not some gutless, puling clerk in the back office, wringing his sweaty hands, trying to explain to his boss there is a better way.

Truss - “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”
BOLLOCKS !! - Then who can, you painted, decrepit clown? What a deceitful, despicable, back sliding road to take; and this to further disadvantage the disadvantaged, who can't fight back. Further empowering an organisation the minister freely admits, he can't control. Porridge for brains and the backbone of an amoeba. What's next then, hit squads in bush to exterminate those who inconveniently get sick and cannot travel to hospital? or will the minuscule now pay for 'free' RFDS services; or, subsidised air fares? Yeah, right. You may still drink the water here, but don't get sick or be poor; not in Warren's version of the bush anyway.

Ben (Q) - Pel-Air: Is 2nd rate crash report good enough for Australia?
(A) – Well the minuscule, Beaker and their Canadian side kicks seem to think so; I guess we must accept the rulings, made by 'experts', in their own best interest.

That this caricature, this cardboard cut-out of a man with almost unlimited power, will not lift so much a well groomed eyebrow to help anything or anyone is a national disgrace. It's a bigger disgrace that we – the people – allow it.

Meanwhile, we sit back and watch the rest of the worlds aviation counties rules mature and grow, helping industry to be useful, employment and revenue generators, contributing to the national wealth. Shame on you minister and well done America, Britain and New Zealand – yet again.

Selah..

I love a scorched earth country, a land of acid rain, where aircraft plough the paddocks, again and again and again. etc. etc..

Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Sep 2014 at 22:30. Reason: Add a bit - Still smoking –steam definitely ON.
Kharon is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2014, 20:57
  #2204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Sarcs, excellent post. Whilst reading it and around two thirds of the way though it I had a lightbulb moment - the reason we Australians are so over regulated, not trusted, micro managed and all treated as being guilty of breaking some kind of aviation rule is because of this - our heritage! We are Convicts!!! You see there is most likely two types of Australians (in the eyes of the idiots responsible for creating our Stasi like existence) - there is the general Aviator, whose ancestry can be traced back to Convicts deported to Australia for minor rule infractions such as stealing a loaf of bread or breaking wind in public (the equivalent today of forgetting to fill in your log book the instant you finish taxiing to the gate, or exceeding flight duty time by 18 seconds, or being colour blind according to CASA standards and Dr Pooshan's interpretation of the rules). Then you have those whose bloodline dates back to those who implemented these Nazi like rules in the first place. Sadly they too live among us today and work in positions of authority where they still believe we are all guilty of a crime before committing it, and as such must be bound and hog tied with red tape, rules and even more rules and add a few more rules on top of that, to ensure that we are not given enough space to even breathe the air that surrounds us.

CASA really just don't get it do they. Suppress the people enough (in this case our aviation industry) and eventually the whole system implodes and scenes of chaos ensue, with the people taking back their streets so to speak. Unfortunately there are signs of this occurring as most of us have had enough of being treated like third rate criminals when in fact we are honest, hard working citizens merely trying to eek out a living from an industry we love. CASA - this is 2014, not 1750. Wake the hell up, get over it, join the real world, please.
Soteria is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2014, 21:43
  #2205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
PS.

The embuggerance is really starting to be felt at grass roots level. Our PPL and recreational flying folk rarely have to deal with the CASA, in any meaningful way. It's as I said to Quadrio – tell your tale in the pub, people will listen but, as it don't affect them and the yarn will soon be forgotten. If industry does not get a grip, unites and force some sort of meaningful response from Truss, the post below will become so common place as to be unremarkable.

Last chance folks, the clock is ticking and don't ask for whom the bell tolls.
Icon -I have been lurking here for quite some time (look at my join date) and have seen all the CASA bashing statements coming from everyone. Up until 2 weeks ago I though they were all a bunch whiners with nothing better to do, hey I was just a PPL who never had any issues with CASA so what was everyone's problem. Then I got my letter, then I did some research, now I am scared!
Kharon is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2014, 22:50
  #2206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
The concept of medical examinations was the RAAF method of weeding out. If they didn't like your family heritage for example, you were washed out for lacking leadership potential or having no demonstrable moral fortitude. This continued into civilian life with DCA and was generationally refined. A pity this wasn't applied to members of parliament.


An aside, I finally bothered to read my RA-Aus magazine for June 2014. Such is my enthusiasm for recreational flying these days. I noted a photo of 2 CAsA Dudes looking "benign". I wonder what that was supposed to portray? I was also sad to read the following financial summary;


2014 2013 2012
Revenue. $1,588,162 $2,369,483 $2,521,951
Expenses. $1,834,202 $2,495,678 $2,302,026
Surplus/Deficit. $ 246,040- $ 126,195- $ 219,925+


It would appear, (but I'm not an accountant), they have lost somewhere near $1Million in revenue in 2 years.


I wonder how the other alphabet soup associations are faring? I wonder if they all have "benign" CAsA dudes hanging about?

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 22nd Sep 2014 at 22:53. Reason: Spreadsheet won't work. Years go where the $ sign is.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 03:40
  #2207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The mysterious affair of the lost minutes.

February 15, 2013, Nick Xenophon was on a roll and had his questions all lined up, like good little soldiers. The video - 'man at the back of the room' - posted by Sarcs is an end play of an elaborate dance, at the very end of an interesting passage of play – to wit; the stoic, albeit nervous denial of collusion. Farq-u-hardson was the anointed maestro of smoke and mirrors, with his two willing aides (White loading the wagon and Chambers shovelling the 'data') to make sure of a smooth passage. Then Nick poses the questions – to the maestro - and McComic steams to the rescue.

5. HANSARD PG 18 – 19.

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Farquharson, do you have the minutes of the accident investigation committee of 18 November 2011 handy?

Mr McCormick: Can you give us a couple of minutes in which to look? We have got substantial amounts of paperwork.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure.

Mr McCormick: Sorry, what was the date again?

Senator XENOPHON: 18 November 2011.

Mr McCormick: I sincerely doubt it. That is not something which we considered. But we could have a look.

Senator XENOPHON: I have only got my note of it.

Mr Farquharson: No.

Senator XENOPHON: You don't have it?

Mr Farquharson: Not the 18th.

Senator XENOPHON: My understanding is that the minutes show, Mr Farquharson, that you were to meet with ATSB to see if ATSB had changed its position. Would that ring a bell?

Mr McCormick: We will have to take that on notice, sorry. We have to refer to the minutes.

Senator XENOPHON: If I can put it to you in those terms that, if that is the case, it shows that there is an element of influence on the part of CASA with respect to the ATSB?

McCormick [We] did not provide that report to anyone. We did not provide the report outside—I am talking about the CASA accident report—we did not provide that report as we naturally would not do until the ATSB demanded it of us under section 32. Refers CAIR 093. (My bold)
These questions, amongst other were taken on notice by McComic. Then we have a wait, until March 01, 2013 for the second supplementary submission to be presented, which runs about the houses and provides some very entertaining, artistic, creative paragraphs; even manages to laud the Chambers knock off of Messrs Cook, Christie and Watson definitive reports while having a slap at the "so called" Cook report. Not a bad effort – if you like that sort of twaddle. But the answers to the questions (QON) must be provided, so March 24, 2013 the response to QON arrives.

• Question 5: Hansard, pages 18-19, from Senator Xenophon ( CASA influence over ATSB) is covered in Sections 2 and 4 of CASA's Second Supplementary Submission.
Now then, if patience, constitution and fortitude allows it; you must read parts 2 and 4 of the CASA supplementary to winnow your answers.

Out of human kindness; I'll tell you the answer to the riddle of the missing minutes. There ain't one; and the missing minutes remain concealed from public view. Nick and his team may have a copy saved from the shredder; but no one else has seen those precious minutes, which may just contain the vital clue to the great mystery of why a safety recommendation was diminished. I for one would like to see them; but better still, now that Terry is the 'guv'nor' for him bring in the missing minutes in and to answer directly, under oath, those questions posed to him by Xenophon, taken on notice by McComic and explain why the non-answers were returned, buried under a pile of twaddle.

Could it be someone is having a lend of Xenophon; or is he just playing possum – I wonder? Perhaps shy sentinel can provide the answers – who knows. Life's little puzzles eh??

Research data – ONE TWOTHREE.

Toot toot..

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Sep 2014 at 19:07.
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 07:28
  #2208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
For the benefit of the 'person at the back of the room.'

For the benefit of those amongst us more inclined to moving pictures and the many nuances therein; here is the vid passage for your entertainment...


Kharon - I for one would like to see them; but better still, now that Terry is the 'guv'nor' for him bring in the missing minutes in and to answer directly, under oath, those questions posed to him by Xenophon, taken on notice by McComic and explain why the non-answers were returned, buried under a pile of twaddle.
Hmmm...perfect opportunity for the Ag (currently carrying the can) DAS to clear the air on the missing minutes, when he presents before the committee on 20 October at Supp Estimates...

Here I was thinking that on the PelAir - Timeline of Embuggerance (TOE) - the cupboard was pretty bare after 22 July 2010 where the AgDAS emailed to the DAS, quote from my post - TOE (P3.5) cont/- :
However the next email reply (4 days later) from the (obfuscating) DDAS seems to be where everything went South for the next two years??

“…is comfortable with the report's content, to the extent that it correlates with the AAT material to be submitted shortly and that there are no differences that can be highlighted by the opposing legal team…

People can fill in the blanks but basically the report (CAIR 09/3) matched the evidence (ducks in a row) intended to be presented at the AAT, except the opposing legal team did fervently contest this evidence. Hmm…wonder if the opposing legal team were privy to CAIR 09/3 in its entirety?
After this statement from the former DAS...

"....We did not provide that report to anyone. We did not provide the report outside—I am talking about the CASA accident report—we did not provide that report as we naturally would not do until the ATSB demanded it of us under section 32..."

I now wonder if the CAIR 09/3 was indeed requested by the bureau under s32 and if so when was this request made?? It would appear from the AgDAS (then DDAS) email that he was never going to freely give it up...

“…When (redacted) has confirmed the fuel calculations, would like to discuss in general the report with ATSB. In any discussions (redacted) would not provide the ATSB with a copy of the report but would talk about the salient points. This is in keeping with the spirit of the MOU…”

I also question the veracity of a statement from the AgDAS a bit further along in the Hansard (approx. 05:30 in the vid):
Senator XENOPHON: Yes, but there was a lead-up to that. The downgrading occurred as a result of a number of representations. How many times did you meet with the ATSB to discuss CASA's views about whether it should be a critical safety issue or not? It was clearly the view of CASA that it should not be a critical safety issue. Is that right?

Mr Farquharson : The CASA view was that the legislative approach the ATSB were proposing at the time could not be achieved and in our responses we pointed out to them an amount of information and that these decisions come down to airmanship and the responsibilities of the captain when airborne. They were the two positions taken.
Beyond that the next we heard, that I am aware of, was when the safety issue was formally downgraded by the commission on 16 August 2012—
Especially when you consider this part of my previous (in particular the Annex A link) post above:
Which says to me that the DAS (at least) was expecting the bureau (as is normal procedure) to soon publish an interim report on at least the CSI. It was just a matter of whether that would be in the form of a SR or an SI. This assumption by the DAS was also reinforced by the fact that a month before his ‘white hats’ had drafted NPRM 1003 OS and he had personally endorsed the proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 (Annex A).
Nah surely it can't be that our now (acting or not) fearless leader would dare to mislead the good Senators and indeed the IOS, hmm maybe he just had a forgettery moment...

Maybe in the interest of probity the AgDAS, along with being armed with the minutes, could also clear this strange conundrum up at the Sup Estimates, after all the buck currently stops with the AgDAS...

Addendum - AQON links

By the way for those interested the AQONs for the last Budget Estimates have finally been released...

Here are the relevant links of most interest:

229 - 240 Aviation and Airports (AAA)(PDF 180KB)QoN230A-B (PDF 106KB)

241 - 257 Airservices Australia (AA)(PDF 256KB)

258 - 262 Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)(PDF 92KB)

263 - 273 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)(PDF 157KB)

From the ATsB AQONs in regards to TSBC peer review
Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: Was this committee's report into the Pel-Air incident provided to the TSB? Is that one of the documents that the TSB is looking at?

Mr Dolan: Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: I take it, Chair, we have not been contacted by the TSB. No, we have not. Was any view proffered as to whether the Senate committee should be contacted in respect of their report and in respect of the incident?

Mr Dolan: We provided the report to the TSB and left it to them.

Senator XENOPHON: Are you able to provide the committee on notice a list of the material, documents and any correspondence in respect to the matters that the committee was considering?

Mr Dolan: Yes. I can give you a list of all material that was provided by us to the TSB.
Answer:
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) of its own initiative obtained a copy of the committee’s report. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) provided the following material to the TSB:
• ATSB Safety Investigation Quality System Manual;
• ATSB Safety Investigation Policy and Procedures Manual;
• ATSB Safety Investigation Guidelines Manual;
• ATSB Safety Investigations Tools Manual;
• ATSB Safety Investigation Information Management System access;
• ATSB organisation chart;
• Final Report of the Safety Oversight Audit of the Civil Aviation System of Australia (February 2008);
• Summary of ATSB actions in response to the International Civil Aviation Organization Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program 2008 Audit Findings;
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Post-occurrence Special Audit of PelAir;
• Memorandum of Understanding between the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (February 2010);
• International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 13 – Electronic Filing of Differences (July 2010);
• The Chambers Report: Oversight Deficiencies – PelAir and Beyond (August 2010);
• Memorandum of Understanding between the ATSB and the Department of Defence Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety for Cooperation relating to Transport Safety Investigation (February 2013); and
• Government Response to the Report into Aviation Accident Investigations (March 2014).
MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 25th Sep 2014 at 07:53.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 19:24
  #2209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Meeting 28, November 18, 2011.

'K' as requested – an un shredded version.

P4. a.k.a. The Ferret.....

PAIN_NET is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 21:11
  #2210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Selective reading.

- Like selective deafness, is an acquired art; learned at the teat by 'crats and perfected over the years. Once the Canucks have gotten past the stultifying 'manual and protocol suite' and get onto the juicy stuff; will the beauty be in the eye of the beholder. It's a question of view point; that which abhorrent to one man, may easily be seen as the very quintessence of elegance to another. As our safety 'bodies' view their output as 'perfection', is it reasonable to assume that like minded Canuck 'crats will find the same perfection in the dissembling, obfuscated ramblings our 'crats hold up for scrutiny? Because if they do, dismiss any notion of an independent, constructive return report being provided. The reading list includes:-

• Final Report of the Safety Oversight Audit of the Civil Aviation System of Australia (February 2008);

• Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Post-occurrence Special Audit of PelAir;

• The Chambers Report: Oversight Deficiencies – PelAir and Beyond (August 2010);

• Government Response to the Report into Aviation Accident Investigations (March 2014).
The not so subtle influence to take the line of least resistance is apparent throughout the reading set and you can see how it will be worked. From the CASA supplementary (my bold):-

2.6 The two Human Factors experts contributing to the work of the Special Audit team were Mr Ben Cook, then Manager of CASA's Human Factors Section, and Mr Malcolm Christie, another CASA Human Factors Specialist. Like other members of the Special Audit team, their role was to examine and analyse those aspects of Pel-Air's operations in respect of which they had particular expertise, and to provide input into the final audit report on that basis.
You will note the Canadian omission of expert reports and interviews; it is reasonable to ask why. The answers follow shortly, if you ignore 'selective' reading.

2.8 In this case, the so-called 'Cook Report' was a subordinate contributory piece of evaluative work from which the Coordinator of the Pel-Air Special Audit team, Mr Roger Chambers, then Area Manager of CASA's Bankstown Office, could, (and did) draw on, in his preparation of the final authoritative Pel-Air Special Audit Report.
Read paragraph 2.8 again, properly. The dismissive ("so called") attitude to the report of a qualified expert was to be reduced to only the 'elements' selected by the acting area manager who was free, even encouraged to plagiarise and cherry pick to achieve the desired outcome. Cook's missive, in full is a crucial report to anyone remotely interested in operational safety. Is Wodger qualified to be 'selective'; not on your Nelly. You may also note that there is no mention, whatsoever of Christie, which of it's self is 'passing strange'.

2.9 As he quite properly did with the submissions of all members of the Audit Team, Mr Chambers included in the final Pel-Air Special Audit Report those elements of Mr Cook's assessment that were germane to the audit. Material was excluded only on that basis and in accordance with generally applicable audit protocols. Accordingly, relevant FRMS-related findings in Mr Cook's assessment appear consistently in the corresponding sections of the Special Audit Report.
Try again – same-same – hand picked 'elements', 'germane' why carve up the report, when, standing alone the whole would be beneficial. But no, once again selective reading is influenced by selected parts.

4.9 Of course, at the time there was no 'Chambers Report' to which Mr McCormick might have referred. However, having advised the Chief Commissioner of CASA's intentions, the existence of information-and the likelihood that there would be further information of a kind that could be said to fall within the broad scope of paragraph 4.4.6 of the MoU-was conveyed to the ATSB on 26 May 2010.
Interesting – Cook gets bundled out after producing a 'so called' report; but the Chambers missive is granted the accolade of being 'a report'. This is a canny ploy; the expert rendered nugatory, the plagiarist nudged forward as the 'ultimate' expert. Read that selectively.

You know, I could, possibly care less about the Canuck report – if I tried. My Grand Mamma was a whiz at card games and a naturally gifted amateur magician who delighted us children with card tricks and sleight of hand (some say this was due to a forbidden liaison with a vaudeville stage magician). Grand carefully educated those who were interested in how to spot a stacked deck, a marked card and many of the card sharps tricks of trade.

Some say – "there's one born every minute, Hallelujah".

Some sources claim the quote is most likely from famous con-man Joseph ("Paper Collar Joe") Bessimer, and other sources say it was actually uttered by David Hannum, spoken in reference to Barnum's part in the Cardiff Giant hoax. Hannum, who was exhibiting the "original" giant and had unsuccessfully sued Barnum for exhibiting a copy and claiming it was the original, was referring to the crowds continuing to pay to see Barnum's exhibit even after both it and the original had been proven to be fakes.
Toot toot...

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Sep 2014 at 21:36. Reason: Cheers Furry - my shout.
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 23:50
  #2211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Why would we be surprised kharon, anyone who joins CAsA is automatically anointed as "Expert".

Look through a few AAT proceedings.

Real experts, with real qualifications and real experience from industry, are largely ignored, in favour of CAsA experts made up of people who couldn't be employed by industry because they require competent people, or RAAF failures who's progression in the RAAF had stalled because they also needed competent people.

Same same the way they selectively massage statistics to promote the Myth that Australian aviation, because of CAsA oversight, is the safest in the world.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2014, 21:10
  #2212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Not too surprised anymore, just nauseous.

Thorny – "Real experts, with real qualifications and real experience from industry, are largely ignored, in favour of CAsA experts"
Sadly, very true in many instances, but not all. It's the white hats v black hats war. From where you sit Thorny, you don't need to look very far to see two classic examples of the war in action. The quality of service and advice is very variable. If we ever manage to establish a board and anoint a new CEO and enter the phase of 'reform' as recommended by Senate and Rev. Forsyth, that will only impact the 'soft' top layer. The real issue, for me at least, is in addressing the very real mess in the lower layers.

Real reform needs to be generated from the top and made to penetrate all the way down to the very bottom. Strong, honest leadership from the top must encourage the 'white hats'; (those who have not resigned and left feeling dirty and disgusted), to step up to the mark and start 'persuading' the black hats to "return to industry", then the deadwood needs to be lopped and coppiced. Little rats nests of vermin need to be excised along with their 'leader'. The new boss of CASA will, as a matter of urgency, need to address the small issues first, if and it's a big IF, any sort of regulatory reform is to be effective. Mostly the howls for – regulatory reform – are used as a convenient cover for reform of the regulator. We have limped along with the old regulations for a long while and, in the right hands, they could remain serviceable for a few more years; provided those 'administering' the regulation were competent, honest folk. Regrettably, those are in the minority..

Take Part 61 for example or 145 if you prefer and see 'who' was the significant draftsman at the base, who drove the 'philosophy' on which the regulation is based, that research will answer many of your questions. Particularly the "who dreamt up this crock" one.

Back in the day, some of the very best rule sets we have were rooted in a 'sound' philosophy, the actual drafting of the rules reflected that intelligence, expertise and honesty. Some of the 'modern' stuff is not based on such expertise but on whimsy, 'personal' preference and the sort of bollocks junior pilots espouse in the mess room. Read the Australian 61 again against the NZ 61 and you shall see the benefit of researching the radical cause of the 61 catastrophe.

If you can spare the time and patience – try a little experiment – ask two of the most junior, least experienced (life and aviation) pilots to draft a part to go into the COM; say for routine, on line proficiency checks, tell them it must be 'black letter legal'. When you get the thing back, you shall see exactly how the part 61 abomination was cobbled together; true dat..

Anyway – I doubt any of us will live long enough to even see a response to the Senate effort, let alone anything more recent. We'll; just keep bumping along the bottom, trying to survive and find a way to avoid the garbage thrown into the once clear stream. Unless of course someone steps up and calls for a clean up drive. We may live in hope, but with little certainty and bugger all faith. Anyone in NZ need a slightly battered driver – airframe; will work for beer, baccy and a new pair of boots at Christmas???

Selah.

PS – TB. The pub wants it's lampshade back. Mrs Pub is miffed..
Kharon is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 03:02
  #2213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 61
Kharon,
Mr Wodger Wabbit is indeed a manipulator of information to suit his own agenda. One of my little experiences with him recently was his denial of an investigation into a Check Captain who threatened to alter the result of a Line Check from a pass to a fail after the successful conclusion of the check.Form already filled in and everything! He did this after I made complaint to him concerning the inconsistency of the company Training and Checking system.
Mr Wabbit denied investigation because "all CASA could do is ask the Check Captain for his version of events".
I then complained to the CASA ICC providing a copy of the company report which stated the Check Captain made "inappropriate comments".
The CASA ICC response was "I cannot help you".
This is not a "buggers muddle" but the deliberate concealment of inconvenient truths to suit a predetermined outcome.
Greedy

Last edited by Greedy; 28th Sep 2014 at 05:58. Reason: spelling
Greedy is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 04:06
  #2214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Unfortunately the ICC was intended to be used as another hurdle that had to be jumped before you could make a complaint to The Commonwealth Ombudsman who required all other avenues of redress be explored prior. Mr Hart was one Commissioner who took his job seriously and learnt that CAsA didn't want any negative outcomes. I'd be surprised if his departure was for any other reason than he was thus compromised. The subsequent positions have, in my opinion, been filled (pardon the pun), by "suitable appointments.


The ICC should be treated as a joke and ridiculed accordingly. Further, I am of the opinion, The Commonwealth Ombudsman has been compromised via cronyism from within LSD.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 04:21
  #2215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Devil

By "suitable" you don't mean someone to share a toothbrush with do you Frank?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 05:59
  #2216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
A number of mice in the house

The ICC is a crock of shit. It became 'compromised' after Mr Hart left. He was a decent, honest, transparent Commissioner. Just the type of Commissioner that industry needs, but not the type of Commissioner a despicable corrupt government wants. Hart saw the light and bolted. It was a sad day for anyone who has ever fronted the ICC since. After Hart left, the foul tempered Skull along with Dr Voodoo and the A380 pensioner finally got to tinker with the structure and stack it in their favour. All with the backing of the equally culpable and palpable Board. The biggest joke of all to anybody with an 'inside understanding of Australia's finest Regulator' was the 'working relationship' between Herr Skull and Hampton. So CASA, it's Directors, the CASA Board, the ICC, MrDak, Truss, and a host of other CASA Managers, a handful of the PMC spin doctors, the lot of them, are a bad joke who make honesty, integrity and transparency look like something that only belongs to a Disney fantasy film. The entire Australian version of the Westminster system has been manipulated, twisted, diverted and corrupted from what it's core purpose was. This is not new. This has been a century in the making and what we now have is a hybrid beast which has morphed from something with integrity to an untouchable and indestructible corrupt system that well serves this lands Masters but treats its citizens like 18th century criminals, even when innocent. It is legalised bullying and buggery, accepted and embraced by the highest office in our land. As Frank would say, it's time for civil disobedience, it's the only way.
Soteria is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 06:05
  #2217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Soteria,

I gather you are a tad pissed off?

Speaking of Hampton, how would she be addressed, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mistress??
thorn bird is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 08:05
  #2218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Thorny, pissed off with corruption and incompetence mate. I've touched on corruption mostly in my previous post, but Part 61 is another clusterf#ck of incompetence that is set to add tens of thousands of dollars worth of unnecessary burden onto helicopter operators, regardless of what that bearded CASA fool Gibson has to say.

Speaking of Hampton, how would she be addressed, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mistress??
Soteria is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 08:27
  #2219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Same same for fixed wing mate, I think you are understating the costs but, hundreds of thousands would be closer to the mark. Part 61 as another sage has said will be the devils playground for FOI's.

I always thought the point was to "Standardise"

Part 61 will drive the "Opinion" of the FOI to stratospheric heights of absurdity.

We are already having to operate with unsafe procedures according to the script we must follow.

I really dread whats next.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 08:30
  #2220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
WW2 aircraft, Handley Page: also manufacturer of Bicycle. A vehicle with a "tubularish" frame mounted sometimes upright on two points of usually circumferential dimension one behind the other or horizontally if not in immediate use. The rider sits on the saddle, propels the vehicle by means of pedals that drive the rear chain gear through foot motion and steers with handlebars on the front of the vehicle sometimes cushioned for comfort. (Also known as bike). Flying version subject to CAsA interpretation of the definition and not subject to DAMP testing.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 28th Sep 2014 at 08:35. Reason: TF still appearing sober PG still appearing unmedicated
Frank Arouet 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.