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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 8th Oct 2014, 03:48
  #2261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Get over it.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 19:35
  #2262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Mixed messages and metaphors.

I just wonder, how our minuscule is going to 'manage' the united Senate committee estimates. There is a seriously long list of 'sticky' issues for the committee to play with. The sheer diversity of topic for discussion places Truss in the centre of an almost indefensible position with a dozen or more pathways to that position. If it were a chess game – it would be check mate in three moves. The 'airports' fiasco and the subtle, but effective 'tinkering' with the rules is a major issue. Then there is the whiff of smoke surrounding the indecent speed with which the Pel-Air Humpty-Dumpty was repaired, combined with the atrocious treatment of both Casey and James. In the mix is the MoP, CASA being haunted by AFP involvement in 'several' matters of interest.

That's all before the main course is served and it's an extensive menu offered to the Senators. That's before they get down to the brass tacks issues of why their report and expert, considered recommendations, provided at some considerable expense and effort, has been treated with contempt and indifference. They may also wonder why the ASRR was treated in the same fashion, why the industry response to the ASRR have not been published; and, for $64,000 why the initial report from the Canadian 'revue' (can't call it a review) is so very different from the one being 'translated' (transmogrified) into French before eventually being 'published'. There'll be hell to pay if the original hits the streets, through 'Wikileaks'. Can you imagine the fuss, the ATSB report card (Autumn version) released with a big 'no problemo' ticket, the same day as the original (Summer version) is put out on WL. Now that is a thing I'd love to see – laugh?; Oh, you betchya socks....I digress.

Not many sleeps now and we shall see, be interesting to note how much horse trading has gone on; although I can't quite see what Truss has to trade with. He's sitting in the middle of an artillery target, lets hope Barnaby or even Abbott can see the potential collateral damage and move this fragile, exposed piece to a safe square on the chess board.

Then again – it could all fizzle and dribble away, leaving another steaming pile of elephant dung, cooling in it's wake. We shall see..

I know, but they are my metaphors; mangle them as much as me like –

Toot toot

Last edited by Kharon; 8th Oct 2014 at 19:45. Reason: Love the Canuck datelines - Spring, Autumn, Summer, Winter. Mush simpler than using an actual date.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 20:39
  #2263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
I just wonder, how our minuscule is going to 'manage' the united Senate committee estimates.
Wonder no more.

The Minister and his Departmental and agency officials will continue to treat the Senate with:
contempt and indifference.
The Laborial Senate committee members obviously don't have the moral fibre to put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their AAI Inquiry mouth is. The committee may therefore be safely (and deservedly) ignored.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2014, 23:56
  #2264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Reverend Forsyth - 'Let us pray'.

Courtesy of the AA magazine...:



Yesterday the Rev gave his eulogy to the converted, not so converted & presumably some heathens (FF iron ring)..

Although we are not yet privy to the full transcript some of the quotes & text from the AA article are worth repeating: Forsyth suggests two-year timeline to restore industry’s relationship with CASA
...British Airways and Easyjet freely sent the majority of their operational safety data through to their national regulator, something that would be unheard of here...

“I would never have done it in Qantas 10-12 years ago and you can be damn sure no one is going to do it in this country now,”...

...Overseas, operators share some and in some cases operators share all of that in-house data with the regulator.”

“That’s not happening in Australia. In fact, the reverse is true.”..

Forsyth said the industry’s view that the relationship with CASA was both inappropriate and unhealthy centred on the availability and use of safety data.

Technological advancements in aircraft design and production meant safety systems had evolved, making operations more reliable and eliminating the likes of fixed interval overhauls and “over-the-shoulder” inspection and quality assurance roles. As a result, regulators needed to know more than what was available from incident reports, such as information from airlines’ increasingly sophisticated data and analytical tools within their safety management systems.

However, Australian carriers were increasingly reluctant to share any more than was legally required to CASA.

“There was even some evidence that some people were actually not even reporting the mandatory data to CASA,” Forsyth said.

While airlines in some countries sent their safety data directly to the regulator, Forsyth noted Australian operators sent their information to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), where it was “de-identified” before a summary was produced for CASA. He described that process as “clearly out of step with best practice”.

“This issue revolves around trust...”
Interestingly enough, not long before the Rev delivered his eulogy, Steve C from the Oz put out this article on an announced Flight Safety Foundation project:
Push to share global safety data: leading role for Australia

AUSTRALIA is taking a leading role in a Flight Safety Foundation project to study ways of setting up a global system of sharing safety information.

Australian Greg Marshall, who has taken up the position of vice-president global programs at the foundation’s headquarters in the US, said the project would focus initially on the Asia-Pacific and pan-American regions.

He said it would seek to find a way of capturing the wealth of information collected across the globe by regulators, air safety investigators, airlines, other aircraft operators and navigation service providers.

“They’re collecting that information and they’re collecting it in various forms,’’ Mr Marshall said. “Some of it’s been shared and some of it’s not.
“I guess the secret is that if we can actually capture all of that data in a common form where it can be used, that would be extremely valuable to a number of organisations.’’

Mr Marshall said the foundation would initially survey what sort of information was available in the two regions, who has the data and what protections it was afforded. “We’re looking at what data is actually out there,’’ he said. “It could be from flight data monitoring, it could be flight track data, but probably more importantly the data streams that come from both the operators and the government safety reporting systems.

“We want to see what we can do with those to basically consolidate them and then eventually report them so everybody can share that information.

“That way you can see how a region is performing against certain safety measures and find where they can best focus their resources in improving areas of safety that might differ from region to region.’’ From a practical sense, Mr Marshall said the study would also look at the different systems being used by various bodies and operators, what architecture they used and whether they could talk to each other.

It would also look at whether information could be funnelled through a third-party system.

He believed Australia and New Zealand could take a lead in such a project because of the wealth of knowledge in both countries in managing and capturing data.

“And I think that organisations within Australia can certainly take a role in helping other regions in the development and implementation of a system that allows the sharing of that de-identified data for the betterment of everyone,’’ he said. Mr Marshall said de-identifying the data would be an important issue because of cases in some jurisdictions where safety has been used for judicial purposes or subpoenaed for civil cases.

While there were good systems in Australia and the US, there was still “a long way to go” in some other parts of the world.

“Once we identify where those deficiencies are, I think there’s scope … for a separate study to be done on data protection and how various jurisdictions can establish legislation to essentially protect that safety data,” he said.

“The story with submitting voluntarily is that if the data is suddenly then used in a punitive matter, it dries up the source of voluntary reporting. This is against the principles of capture and analysis for safety purposes.’’

The global data sharing study is one of several projects the FSF has under way. Others include a look at go-rounds with European air navigation organisation Eurocontrol and research firm Presage and, in the Asia-Pacific, work on upset recovery training.

“The intent there is to increase the awareness of upset recovery training and its effectiveness in unusual attitudes, loss-of-control states,’’ Mr Marshall said.

“So it’s being raised at that regional level, at least within the Asia-Pacific, and probably more broadly thereafter.”
Good luck with that Mr Marshall when it comes to dealing with FF (the King of troughs, obfuscation & embuggerance of the weak) & the ATsBeaker (who was complicit in the PelAir cover-up)...

Moving on and not long before the Forsyth speech Beaker also stepped up to the podium... Here is a wrap of mi..mi..mi..Beaker's dribble where apparently, as is typical lately, he avoided all other aviation safety relevant topics except his pride & joy MH370..: Dolan optimistic on finding MH370

OK no surprises there I guess...

However one wonders if the miniscule, M&M & co will be having 2nd thoughts on whether they have picked the right man for the job... Especially when you have international aviation heavy weights such as Sir Tim questioning the veracity of the ATsB search assumptions & the Malaysian investigation so far... :
Emirates chief Tim Clark reveals suspicions over true fate of missing flight MH370

TIM Clark is no MH370 conspiracy theory crackpot.
As the recently knighted Emirates president and CEO told Aviation Week in July: “Something is not right here and we need to get to the bottom of it.”

Now, seven months after the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 vanished en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, Sir Tim has cast doubt on the official version of events.

In an extraordinary interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, he challenges the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s conclusion this week that MH370 flew south over the Indian Ocean on autopilot for five hours until it ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky, forcing 239 passengers into a watery grave.

Instead, Sir Tim believes it is far more likely that “MH370 was under control, probably until the very end”, questions the veracity of the “so-called electronic satellite ‘handshake’” used by analysts to pinpoint the probable crash site and insists the mysterious cargo in the hold (removed from the manifest by Malaysian authorities) is a crucial clue to the puzzle.
That an aircraft the size of MH370 can simply disappear without a trace, “not even a seat cushion” was downright “suspicious”, he said.

The executive has vowed that he will not rest until the truth is known, declaring: “I will continue to ask questions and make a nuisance of myself, even as others would like to bury it.”

And as the head of the largest operator of the Boeing 777 in the world (Emirates has a fleet of 127), “I need to know how anybody could interdict our systems”.

Investigators have said the plane’s tracking systems were deliberately disabled by somebody with extensive aviation knowledge in order to take it off radar.
{Ps It is well worth reading the Highlights from the Sir Tim interview transcript}

Hmm...me thinks there is a lot riding on the eventual outcome of the MH370 search/investigation for Beaker & CO...

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 00:35
  #2265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Intelligent Tim, conspiracies and Beakers

Sir Tim is an intelligent man with a high I.Q. He speaks what is on his mind, which coincidentally is what is on many peoples minds.
Perhaps he is suspecting something untoward, something the conspiracy theorists have been promulgating yet something the narrow minded dismiss instantly? I would suggest (just my opinion) the following connection in this accident is of interest, in relation to who was on the passenger manifest, some of those pax belonged to Freescale Semiconductor Ltd, primarily owned by the Blackstone Group (Lord Jacob Rothschild) and the Carlyle Group are listed as a secondary investor.....

If you research the above companies and the apparent complexity of the loss of this aircraft you can see how this 'tragedy' could be of a nature much bigger than the average punter can imagine. As for choosing the ATSB and mi mi Beaker to investigate, it is the logical choice should a high level coverup be the order of the day - the investigating authority is seperate from the Anglo American powers, therefore, in essence, remain at arms length from those doing the covering, plus Beaker is the perfect pawn as he is a complete nupty, devoid of any brain matter, easily manipulated and soft in the crotch! The perfect pawn or fallguy for such a mission.

At the end of the day mechanical failure is always possible, and the notion of pilot suicide cannot be discounted. But a higher level reason behind this occurrence can't be discounted either. No government or powerful corporation is beyond the capability of causing such an event, and anybody who thinks these people are open books and just couldn't pull this off is naive and wishful. This planet is covered from head to ass with satellite systems, seismic tracking and recording technology and other tools of the trade that we probably don't even know exists. To say that nobody, and I mean nobody saw a thing is stupidity of the highest order. Somebody knows exact what happenned, and how, when and where. Hopefully, time will tell.....
Soteria is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 01:31
  #2266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Addendum - PT on Sir Tim interview

Timely article from Planetalking:

Emirates chief Clark repeats doubts over MH370 official narrative

"...The only real problem some might have with his interview in Der Spiegel is that it implies the ATSB has a serious role to play in the actual investigation of the causes of the disappearance, while it is in fact it is wrestling for PR kudos with the Joint Agency Coordination Centre over the management of the deep ocean search on the advice of the international search strategy team.

The ATSB couldn’t even be trusted to honestly and competently investigate the crash of a small Pel-Air operated corporate jet performing a medi-vac flight near Norfolk Island in 2009. It couldn’t even retrieve a flight data recorder from a known location in shallow water, and the government of Australia, to its serious discredit, hasn’t even taken actions to remove and correct a wilfully misleading and incomplete accident report issued by its so called air safety investigator.

But apart from inferring that the ATSB is important, Mr Clark’s contribution in terms of scepticism over the official line on MH370 is one that his peers and rivals in the airline game seem very happy to see publicised..."

Cheers Ben...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 09:12
  #2267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Once again lets read what has actually been quoted. Tim Clark is expressing doubt about the Malaysian Government's statements about the incident:

While his doubts about the southerly track flown by MH370 are probably not widely held anymore, the integrity of the Malaysian Government, its state owned carrier, and its aviation authorities, in relation to the statements they made and the actions they took from day one ( 8 March) of the disappearance of the Kuala Lumpur-Beijing flight and its 239 passengers have already been destroyed from within.
It seems to be suggesting that he has accepted that it flew the southerly route. If, as the worlds largest operator of B777's, had any concern about the ability of the 777 and its crew to cope with a cargo fire and not disappear then why doesn't he ground the fleet until hard evidence of what happened is available?
Lookleft is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2014, 08:01
  #2268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Govt RTR Programme - Fort Fumble compliance by stealth??

Yesterday Peter Strong the CEO of COSBOA (Council of Small Business) put out an excellent article titled - Helping Regulators Regulate Themselves - which many on here will truly be able to relate to...

A couple of quotes..
For some time we at COSBOA have highlighted the attitude of regulators as one of the biggest red tape problems that we have, or perhaps had.

In the past, the approach from many regulators was based on an attitude among their staff and their management that small business people were the enemy. It seemed the prevailing belief was that the small business person was inadequate, we were always in the wrong, we were basically dishonest and untrustworthy as well as being poor business operators.
Unsurprisingly the small business community and its supporters had much the same view of regulators and many still do. All of this was of course not productive or conducive to good business or good regulation.

Then in 2012 the Productivity Commission (PC), mainly at the request of COSBOA, was tasked to investigate regulator engagement with small business. The report was released in October last year and had an immediate impact.

One significant outcome of the report has seen the current Government task the PC to do a paper on a Regulator Audit Framework and this was released on 19 March this year.

A new framework for assessment of regulator performance, a first for Australia, is under development by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with strong advocacy and political leadership being provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Josh Frydenberg.

A draft was released in early September.

The regulators will now be regulated. Excellent. This won’t get headlines as it doesn’t have much to do with big business but it is a game changer.
We in business have deep experience in dealing with compliance demands and we can help to make sure that the regulators themselves do not face over regulation and unnecessary demands.

We do not want the staff of the regulators just ticking boxes and following process for the sake of it, we also do not want regulators passing on extra costs from extra regulation to industry. What we need is cooperation between industry and regulators and a better understanding of each other’s needs.

If we can agree on what is good behaviour and process then we should be in a position to agree on how to best deal with those who flaunt the rules (and give the rest of us a bad name) and at the same time not unduly impact upon those, the majority, who are compliant.

This will be a game changer. The regulators will have no right to criticise all and sundry for the sake of a few.
The other change is on our side, the side of industry, with this framework in place the days of attacking regulators without facts will be gone. Constructive dialogue has to be both ways.

In the end the behaviour of regulators is a key issue for small business. It is not such an issue for big business as they have the resources to deal with the regulators and complex compliance.

The other great benefit will hopefully be the improved interaction between regulators and the policy makers. Policy and processes have to be achievable by regulators and by small business people alike.

If policy isn't developed properly then it can’t be professionally dealt with by the small business person or by the regulator.

This new framework is a constructive approach to better interaction between industry and government and the designers are to be congratulated.

Obviously, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Josh Frydenberg is making sure this gets through to a final product and more power to him. We know that Bruce Billson, the Minister for Small Business, is there as always advocating hard for small business. Nice.
As part of the Govt RTRP regulators are required to undertake an audit of all regulations and estimate the compliance cost for a cross section of those regulations. Apparently Fort Fumble (with absolutely no fanfare) have completed this (see here) task and have now put their self-audit out for industry stakeholder comment... This self-assessment process, with public scrutiny, is in accordance with the options as outlined in the Productivity Commission's - Regulator Audit Framework (reference page 34).

However given that the 'trust factor' (as highlighted by the Reverend Forsyth) between FF & industry is at the lowest point in history; why should the IOS now be accepting of the veracity of the FF self-assessment and why should the IOS now believe that FF will in fact act on industry comment/review of this so called self-assessment audit??

The PC themselves highlight the risks involved with this option:
Regulator self-assessments

...As with the first model, a limitation of this approach is that there may be reduced impartiality and objectiveness, notwithstanding the fact that all vested interests should have been consulted on the indicators and metrics used to assess performance and the reports subject to their scrutiny. An external audit process to randomly check the reliability of the self-assessment would reduce the incentives for bias in self-assessment, as can the publication of the report...
And on the public scrutiny oversight option:
A complement to formal oversight responsibilities is exposure to public scrutiny. By publishing the audit plans and audit reports and providing an opportunity for public comment, such scrutiny can provide incentives for honest self-assessment. This form of quality assurance requires activist stakeholders, and can be subject to abuse by disgruntled people. However, if major costs are being imposed that could be reduced by better performance, businesses should have an incentive to monitor the audit plans and reports and to report when they perceive that the plans are inadequate or the audit falls short of an accurate reflection of regulator behaviour.
Hmm..it seems to me that there is still ample opportunity for FF to bury or water down this complement to oversight, the signs are already there when comment is being sent to an internal email address... Perhaps a way around this would be to forward to one of the applicable contacts from the RTRP crew, see here: Cutting Red Tape

Moving on and while on the RTRP crew I note that Josh Frydenberg released a joint MR with PM Tony today that should also be of particular interest to many on here..:
Further Measures to Cut Red Tape - Accepting Trusted International Standards

Published: Tuesday, 14 October 2014

Joint Press Release
Hon Tony Abbott MP, Prime Minister
Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

As part of the Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, the Government will examine opportunities for greater acceptance of international standards and risk assessments.

This is an important part of the Government’s plan to cut red tape and foster a lower cost, business friendly environment with less regulation.

Businesses often have to undertake a regulatory approvals process to use or sell products in Australia that duplicates a process that has already occurred in other developed countries. This adds to costs and provides little or no additional protection.

The Government will adopt a new principle that if a system, service or product has been approved under a trusted international standard or risk assessment, then our regulators should not impose any additional requirements for approval in Australia, unless it can be demonstrated that there is a good reason to do so.

This will remove regulatory duplication, reduce costs and delays for businesses and consumers, increase the supply of products into the Australian market and allow regulatory authorities to focus on higher priorities.

As an important first step, the Government will enable Australian manufacturers of medical devices the option of using European Union certification in place of TGA certification. This will place Australian manufacturers on the same footing as overseas competitors.

The Government will also require the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) to increase its acceptance of international risk assessments of industrial chemicals made by reputable international regulatory authorities such as the European Union regulator.

To ensure a thorough review of all regulations, ministers will write to regulators in their portfolio and work with stakeholder groups to develop criteria for assessing opportunities for the acceptance or adoption of trusted standards and assessments.

Examples of unnecessary divergence from international standards can be submitted at the cuttingredtape.gov.au website.

Any changes will be subject the Government’s regulation impact statement processes and progress will be reported at the twice yearly repeal days and in the annual deregulation report.

These reforms build on the Government’s $700 million cut to red and green tape since coming to office including the removal of around 10,000 pieces of unnecessary legislation and regulations.
MTF..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2014, 10:42
  #2269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
All sounds fine and bewt Sarc's,

But an examination of some other cost analysis conducted by CAsA would indicate they live in La La land if they imagine they even got close to the real cost.

For example, cost per hour for a chief Pilots time..$35 and hour
They charge their incompetent FOI's out at way way more than that.

I don't believe they have any idea of what the cost burden of regulation is, neither do I believe they give a damn.

As long as the trough is full, the perks are available, and the fiddles are ignored they will continue on their destructive path.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2014, 17:49
  #2270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Examples of unnecessary divergence from international standards can be submitted at the cuttingredtape.gov.au website.
I take it the casrs fall into that category. Or is it everyone else that has divurged from casa's robust regulations. Report your casaisms.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2014, 00:40
  #2271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"Feel like a Tooheys" - One for the girls.

Recently there was an FOI review decision, made by the soon to be defunct OAIC, that went against FF...

This decision would seem to be at odds with previous similar review decisions that involves CAsA , normally made by the commissioner himself - Prof MacMillan - or his delegated minions. The Prof is on some sort of sabbatical, perhaps looking for a new job, consequently Karen Toohey is in the acting role. Here is the background to this review case (Veronica Bijl and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AICmr 108 - 3 October 2014) :

Background
  1. Ms Bijl purchased an aircraft VH-FLR from the affected third party in November 2008. The third party continued to operate and maintain the helicopter.
  2. On 1 July 2013, Ms Bijl applied to CASA for access to:
    • (1) CASA’s audit findings or a result in relation to aircraft VH-FLR from the years 2009 to 2011, including but not limited to:
      • (a) Maintenance& servicing;
      • (b) Training;
      • (c) Operational; and
    • (2) Any action taken upon [the third party] (and all associated company names) by CASA between 2009 and 2011.
  3. On 9 September 2013, the CASA made a decision on the FOI request. CASA identified 55 pages of documents as falling within the scope of the FOI request. CASA refused access to all the documents. In making its decision, CASA relied on the business exemption (s 47G(1)(a)) and certain operations of agencies exemption (s 47E(d)).
  4. On 8 October 2013, Ms Bijl applied for internal review of CASA’s decision.
  5. On 11 November 2013, CASA varied its original decision. CASA refused access to some documents and granted access to others. In making its internal review decision, CASA relied on ss 47G(1)(a), 47G(1)(b) and 47E(d).
  6. On 6 January 2014, the applicant sought IC review of this decision under s 54L of the FOI Act.
The review decision is not a laborious read and I recommend reading it in full but to cut to the chase here is Ms Toohey's final decision:
Decision
  1. Under s 55K of the FOI Act, I set aside the Department’s decision of 11 November 2013 and decide, in substitution for that decision, that:
    1. the Audit Report falls within the scope of the FOI request
    2. the Request Form and Audit Report contain the name, position and contact details of individuals connected with the third party and this personal information is exempt under s 47F
    1. the Request Form and Audit Report are not conditionally exempt under ss 47E or 47G and the Audit Report is not exempt under s 47
    1. an edited copy of the Request Form and Audit Report should be prepared under s 22 and released to the applicant.
Karen Toohey
Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner
3 October 2014
Love it and definitely a win for the girls...

MTF...

Ps Here is the program for Senate Estimates on Mundy...

SENATE RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - Supplementary Budget Estimates for 2014-15 (Monday 20 October 2014)

...wonder how Tezza will stay alert as the hearing is way..way past his bedtime..
Oh well I guess it's port & stogies all round...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2014, 01:24
  #2272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Sarcs, Are you happy with details of an audit rport being released publicaly?
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2014, 21:11
  #2273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
I'll drink to that..

How very, very cheering the Toohey decision is. Not only has she set a clear precedent for those trudging along the weary pathway to FOiA Nirvana, but she has, in no uncertain terms told CASA to play nice and respect the system. Love it: Bijl only wanted most of it – Toohey penalised them and made them cough it all up. Lets hope the information is used wisely and well.

Bravo Ms. Toohey, well done indeed......

Sarcs -
.

Toot tooee.
Kharon is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2014, 22:42
  #2274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"Commercial in confidence" - A double edged sword.

...or two!" Now that is what I'm talking about - love it "K"...

Eddie - "Are you happy with details of an audit rport being released publicaly"

Ah yes the old CIC argument that revealing disturbing findings (or not) in a Fort Fumble audit will be the straw that broke the camel's back and lead to severe financial hardship and ultimately closure is simply a crock...

If we lived in a world where the playing field was level and the game was played where the umpire's (instead of a judge, jury & executioner) primary role was to promote & foster the game, I made tend to agree with the concept of protecting potentially defamatory information on the principles of CIC. However sadly here in Oz that is not the case...

Classic examples are the Transair & PelAir cover-ups where past audits were attempted to be withheld (under the excuse of CIC) but ultimately revealed under FOI or under AAI investigation. In the 1st case the breaching of CIC may have contributed to that company's demise but in the 2nd?? Well did it lead to that company shutting shop, or losing contracts, or even affecting the profit by one iota of it's much more highly valued sister company??

Then there is the other side of the coin where CIC has been deployed but an AOC transgressor has been placed in the FF 'show cause' enforcement (embuggerance) process.

Barrier was a classic, where the operator did not or could not afford to continue to his/her penultimate day in Court/AAT hearing - i.e. done by the process. In the course of this long embuggerance the poor operator find themselves constantly being white anted by rumour & innuendo about what is contained in past routine audits. However due to the now legal process the AOC holder cannot reveal the true content of past audits to defend their previous & possibly good, solid, unblemished operating record...

No Eddie personally I have no issue with past audit reports being revealed, after all a good AOC holder should have nothing to hide and the bad ones...well???

IMO (and it is just my opinion) 'CIC immunity' is much like 'Diplomatic immunity' and should be revoked...


{Rumour on the Prof: The good Professor is reportedly now under some sort of conflict of interest cloud from his previous job as the Commonwealth Ombudsman....apparently it is related to a complaint that had its origins in the FF ICC office..}

Last edited by Sarcs; 18th Oct 2014 at 23:21.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2014, 20:48
  #2275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Valid argument.

Second the Sarcs motion – IF our regulator was transparent, honest and a straight shooter; the conversation on PPRuNe may be a little different. There are those who 'bark' about "dodgy" operators not being closed down, then there are those who complain about decent companies being hammered out of existence.

The truth, I believe, lays somewhere in between, the problem is that where we should be able to unanimously applaud a 'sound' decision and a safe verdict – at appeal – 'we' cannot. There are far too many inconsistencies. Pel-Air is a classic, as is Airtex and Barrier. Any reasonable comparison of NCN (RCA in old money) and the CASA response to the noted, audited and published results indicates only one thing – the regulator plays with a seriously stacked deck.

This is no position to start to build 'trust'; not where it can be proven that the regulator lied – 'through it's teeth'. It may well be painful, but publish the CASA audit, plus both the company and CASA response to 'NCN'. Publishing the follow up action from both parties may go some way toward clarity, transparency, probity and the prevention of repeated breaches and incidents which are 'borderline' or 'accidental'. The more complex the regulation, the more chance of breach. Closed loop, open system - Hell, it may even improve safety – who knows: lest we tries it.

Ask the FAA if you can't take my word. The FAA will decimate – completely – an operation that, after a reasonable warning of NC, fail to 'fix it'. But the chance to fix up proven breaches of regulation, with expert support is always the first option. Which beats the CASA lottery system (Rafferty's rules) into a cocked hat.

Aye, it's a wicked old world...

Last edited by Kharon; 19th Oct 2014 at 21:17. Reason: Ed: the ed.
Kharon is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2014, 22:44
  #2276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
There are those who 'bark' about "dodgy" operators not being closed down, then there are those who complain about decent companies being hammered out of existence.
So by inference "those who bark" are dogs and "those who complain" are gentlemen? I take it that you did catch a glimpse of HL's post before it was deleted otherwise your reference is a bizarre coincidence.

It never ceases to amaze me that the behavior of the Regulator in shutting down dissent has been replicated to perfection by the most vehement critics of the Regulator's behavior! Not for the first time has the angry mob responded to the mantra that "If you are not for us then you are against us".
Lookleft is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2014, 23:29
  #2277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Chair setting the tone.

Hot off the cyber-net the Heff opens up with...

"...I've has some enquiries in recent days about the future of General Aviation.."


At about 08:01 when the Heff mentions Bankstown & 'flood plains' - draws an almost indiscernible "gulp" from M&M...

Hmm...this session (this evening) could be well worth watching...:
8.40–9.00 pm - 13. Aviation and Airports Division
20 mins

9.00–9.15 pm
[Tea Break]

9.15–9.30 pm - Aviation and Airports Division (cont.)
15 mins
MTF...

Ps That statement that Heff reads out - from the doc he waves around - sounds strangely familiar??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2014, 05:13
  #2278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Dept contribution ($60million) to Govt RTRP & new standing order

The following video segment, from this mornings Estimates, shows Labor firebrand Senator Conroy questioning on Dept (& agencies) projected savings across over 160 regulations, as part of the Govt RTRP.

In this case the regulations under scrutiny were from CASR Part 21 & Part 61..


You will note that Senator Conroy mentions a new standing order in relation to questions that in a Senator's opinion are yet to be adequately answered or that the Senator does not yet want to be put on notice...

Here is that addition to Senate SO26 para(4):
26 Estimates
At the end of paragraph (4), add:

If a senator has further explanations to seek, items of expenditure shall not be closed for examination unless the senator has agreed to submit written questions or the committee has agreed to schedule additional hearings for that purpose.

(Agreed to 25 June 2014.)
Certainly changes the dynamic.... when before a Dept/Agency officer could simply defer (obfuscate) a probing question for months and months... By which time the original QON has lost its impact and many of the AQONs are less than satisfactory in reply and merely more bureaucrat spin...

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2014, 07:04
  #2279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
" Projected savings"??? for who??

Aint no savings in Part 61, just massive costs, Oh sorry industry pays that.

Of course "Safety" will be dramatically improved because of the decrease in aviation activity.

Reduction in aviation activity???...Now I see where the "Savings" are.

What are CAsA's projections on savings for all their Staff that will be made redundant because they are surplus to requirements?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2014, 12:08
  #2280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Gosh, the lettuce wasn't even wet this evening!

Yawns all 'round.
Creampuff 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.