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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 23rd Oct 2014, 08:49
  #2301 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,443
"In might be said, in the most general of contexts, that a public service culture that thinks it is immune from rthe criminal law of Australia is a culture than can destroy respect for Government."

Hate to point this out Sarc's, CAsA KNOWS it is immune from the criminal law of Australia.

That has has been demonstrated so many times, John Quadrio comes to mind.

An ordinary citizen, just doing his job to the best of his ability, safely, and as far as anyone in this screwed up system we call aviation oversight (dependent on the FOI of the day), compliant with the law, when suddenly a capricious, malicious, regulator turns up, manufactures evidence, intimidates witnesses and when the proper authority declines to prosecute, takes it upon itself to destroy this citizen, his dreams, his plans his financial wellbeing and his health, because they can never be wrong.
Unmitigated bastardization and a shame on our government.

Last edited by thorn bird; 23rd Oct 2014 at 09:32.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 15:47
  #2302 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Bill's Crimes Act

After Sarc's hint I went reading. I found this interesting:


Posted October 23, 2014 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

Do we think the Heff was referring to s6 of the Crimes Act 1914:

“6 Accessory after the fact

Any person who receives or assists another person, who is, to his or her knowledge, guilty of any offence against a law of the Commonwealth, in order to enable him or her to escape punishment or to dispose of the proceeds of the offence shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.”

Unsurprisingly, the Crimes Act 1914 does not mention “misprision (of)felony”. According to John Menadue The Revival of Misprision of Felony. Guest blogger: Kieran Tapsell | Pearls and Irritations

“The crime, according to Lord Denning in the 1962 House of Lords case, Sykes v The Director of Public Prosecutions, was more than 700 years old. It is so old that the word “misprision”, meaning “concealment” has disappeared from everyday use.

Misprision of felony was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1967, and all Australian States followed suit. New South Wales abolished it in 1990, and replaced it with a statutory form in S.316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), making it an offence not to report a “serious” crime (one with a penalty of 5 years or more in prison) unless there was a reasonable excuse. The other States replaced it with a provision that made the concealment of a crime an offence only if the concealment was in return for some gain.”

Unfortunately for the Heff, the Criminal Code Act 1995 also fails to mention “misprision of felony” and only mentions “accessory after the fact” in the context of s6 of the Crimes Act 1914.

Perhaps Margie needed to say that there are many issues under corporate codes of conduct on integrity issues that will get you fired, but that the context of the breaches may be such that there is no certainty of successful prosecution for fraud.

Yet again, not enough information prior to sending out the lynch mob for mine.
As Kharon would say: passing strange that little interchange.

Stay Alive,
4dogs is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 18:51
  #2303 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Of Oversights, aberrations and bullets.

Good on Alex Gallacher, foxed MM out of his hole, even if the smug retort was "not me – I've got top cover – Staib is on her Pat Malone, so there" (smirk).

Mr Mrdak : No. The governance of the organisation rests with the board and the CEO. They are accountable to the minister.

Senator GALLACHER: So where do they get their money?

Mr Mrdak : They are funded from industry charges.

Senator GALLACHER: Which are passed on to the travelling public as airfares.

Mr Mrdak : That is correct. The organisation is industry funded.

Senator GALLACHER: So it is a government business enterprise which does not know the rules in accordance with the public works committee, which is the longest-standing committee of the federal parliament. It has nothing to do with you. Is that what you are telling me?

Mr Mrdak : The chief executive has outlined to you the way in which this has been identified and the rectification steps taken. I do not think I can add anything further to that.

Ms Staib : Through the pricing arrangements there is—through the ACCC—but we do not have to seek approval of the Department of Finance, because it is all revenue derived from airline charges. It is not a government appropriation. (my bold)
Then; after the Gallacher jabs, but before the sweaty top lip of Staib is mopped dry – Sterle throws in a credit card right cross:- of course collective amnesia sets in; then coyly, like a Victorian virgin, daringly uncovering her ankle; the mighty intellect of Staib fires up and a dim, vague, small recollection creeps into the forebrain. What a load of Bollocks; unless it's an almost daily occurrence – sacking one of gods chosen for ripping off industry funds – I think the whole department would know who, when, where and how much was 'misused' and in which cathouse the money was spent.

IMO a decent manager would go for a very public prosecution, just to stop the rest of the troops thinking they could get away with similar, set the tone by making an example. But the witless Staib can only pray – "if my memory serves me correctly". Bollocks. I'm more offended by the arrogant assumption that everyone is dumb enough to swallow that crap and bad play acting than the loss of AUD$20, 000; or that we are expected to believe it was an isolated event. While I'm at it – (steam on) can someone please teach her to read out-loud from a script; it is after all, a basic skill learned at the teat and a must for anyone who presumes to do a lot of 'speechifying'. (Steam off).

Sterle : It is a pretty serious issue, because they were dismissed. Does anyone else have the amount? Gentlemen, you have that blank look on your faces—it is not so hard. How many people get dismissed the credit-card misuse? Someone must have the figure. I do not believe that you do not have it.

Ms Staib : I am sorry but I do not have the figure at hand. I simply cannot recall it.
Mind you, when your'e busy gouging AUD $96.3 MILLIONS – out of the travelling public – a $20,000 oversight may well be – insignificant.

CHAIR: Did the person who defrauded with the credit card make good the fraud amount? Or did you just say, 'You're sacked. See you later'?

Ms Staib : He has left the organisation. I will have to check whether we have pursued the repayment of the money.

CHAIR: Unbelievable.

Senator STERLE: On that, Chair, perhaps we could let Ms Staib know that at the next round of Senate estimates I want her to come prepared with all the information on the credit card misuse, and with any other examples of credit card misuse, travel misuse or anything that has been in the structure of Airservices Australia in the last three to five years, so we will not have play charades.

CHAIR: I will be consulting with the secretary, because now I know about it, and under the Crimes Act I am going to act, with the assistance of the secretary. Thank you very much. I will now call the ATSB. (My bold)
CHAIR:"Did someone get the bullet?" Is a bloody good question and places Staib in the same group as Dolan. If this committee was to get any more angry, they could, quite rightfully be howling for a minimum of two resignations, if not three from this tawdry passage of play.

4 Dogs – nice catch; it is indeed an intriguing notion and the "W" quote you provided has been at the core of a semi-furious, unresolved discussion at the BRB.

Yet again, not enough information prior to sending out the lynch mob for mine.
One thing the BRB never disagreed on was that whatever happens – will be behind closed doors, it will be swift, ruthless and never exposed to public view. This committee have good lines of contact and are trusted. There is little disagreement that if they do need additional 'information', it will be provided. Plenty of it available.

Sarcs –"One wonders how Ms Staib's position could still be tenable after such an insipid performance; but, then again, we still have Beaker in position don't we??"
We are becoming a tribe which seems to accept accident investigation reports which are "aberrations" and $96, 000,000 "oversights" as the norm. Perhaps it's time we asked the same question as Heff did, with a rider – Did someone get the bullet? – If not why not??

Second the motion for Hood's choccy frog – but, only one though, the little blighter is getting addicted and using the wrappers for 'bling'. Which, of it's self, is no bad thing, however we must control the excesses of our public officials....

Toot toot.

4D – the infamous "passing strange" comment came from one of McComic's more disgusting rants during the Pel-Air fiasco when he attempted to denigrate and belittle one of the witnesses; went down like a well trimmed manhole cover – but delighted me; so, I 'wodgered' it......

Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Oct 2014 at 21:06. Reason: So many choices; so little time - great, ain't it?
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 07:19
  #2304 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 414
Why was Ms Staib wearing wings on her clothing? Is that part of the Airservices uniform?

I was also interested in Sen. Fawcett's questions on the RK NDB approach and why it can't be performed when the Tower is operating. It really is Alice in Wonderland if it is unsafe to do an NDB at RK with the Tower because the procedure goes OCTA but perfectly safe to do an NDB at SU where the procedure goes OCTA with the Tower open.

At least I now know why they are putting in an RFF station at Ballina! Finally there is some recognition that the most likely place for a Cat 1 accident will have the rescue services on the spot. I think Sen Serle's head will explode if he witnesses another performance like that one.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 08:02
  #2305 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Just so there's no room for confusion, please note that CASA and ATSB have effectively told the Senate Committee that it can go and get f*cked.

CASA and ATSB have done that because they know they have the blessing of the Secretary and Minister, and they know Laborial Senate Committee members won't put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their Committee mouth is.

Is there anyone still confused, or hoping against hope all the theatrics at Senate Committee or Estimates hearings are anything other than that: theatrics?

I'm happy to walk you through the relevant concepts and facts as often as is necessary.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 08:29
  #2306 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,443
Awww. C'mon Creamie you have to admit it is entertaining watching the scumbags who are destroying our industry squirm.
Small satisfaction I know, but what else do we have?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 08:52
  #2307 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
True: The entertainment is some consolation.

I'd far prefer competent and honest government at all levels, though.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 14:55
  #2308 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,286
Senate Estimates? Sadly, they surely are only ever dramatic theatre!

NSW's ICAC also.

But both are rather expensive but ineffective theatre. For taxpayers.
gerry111 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 20:55
  #2309 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
441 v 70.

Buy your 'corporate services T shirt here and support the system. Fair dinkum, I thought that beyond even the looking glass for fantasy; but wait, there's more fantasy.
Mr Mrdak : There has been an extensive search process, both nationally and internationally. It has taken some time to seek a candidate of suitable quality.
Mr Mrdak : I can only comment that since the departure of Mr McCormick in August I think the organisation has been in very good hands with Mr Farquharson.
The scary part is that by extension – Mrdak makes it clear that "a candidate of suitable quality" would be a Farq-u-hardson look-alike. I'd have to agree – you would indeed have to scour the world to find a replicant; which may explain the lengthy delay. It seems the delay is not due to the MM crew having their schemes to get 'their' man into the job upset; or their inability to find a suitably malleable candidate who can be moulded to their will; or, sod all to do with minuscule inability to decide if he even wants milk in his tea, let alone what to do with 'aviation'. I am very relieved to have had that explained to me; I was a bit suspicious at first, but now I can relax.

Can't be bothered weeding out the whole passage of play – the paragraphs below; from yet another Wodger: he of Weasel Words (WOW), came after the glutinous logic relating to ATO numbers. What no one has told Fawcett is that there will lots of FOI 'returning to industry' all with Flight Test Examiner qualifications, who will charge their victims about $750 per test flight twice each year and a premium to cover the insurance – a nice little earner for the lobotomised, W2 trained, X-casa crowd. Don't worry folks– there will be plenty of them, they have after all just spent the last little while removing as many ATO as possible from the market place. This also helps explain where the FOI are going and why corporate services are expanding, CASA don't have to pay them any longer, they can gouge fees from industry and still do their dirty work. Great scheme to save money methinks.

If that is not enough to provide velvet trough cushions, there is always the Part 61 rort which has been suitably tailored to accommodate the 'brown envelope' clauses. See below, WOW explains the thing in simple terms, not bothering to even hide the grim truth contained within the system.

Mr Crosthwaite : We are talking about the flight reviews, flight tests and proficiency checks for industry pilots. There are a couple of points there. The first one is that, as the acting director said, the industry ATOs, or approved testing officers, have continued. We have provided opportunities for concurrent flight review and proficiency checks. Also, in the latest amendment to the regulations, before they commenced on 1 September, we reduced the number of checks required—for example, for instructors and examiners.
Blah, blah, blah, but for the nice little earner – see here:-

Also we have a mechanism within the regulations that allows CASA to grant an approval to conduct proficiency checks and flight tests. The examples of those were in the four-year transition period. We were able to manage the flow or the demand of flight examiners. (my bold)
Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting to a point where I think we should be demanding Geoff Boyd 'go public' and spill the beans. It is becoming more and more obvious that nothing is going to improve under this captive, manipulated minuscule and if the charade goes on much longer – Boyd will become tainted - guilty by association, which would be a waste of talent and a squandered opportunity. Can the Bored at least let industry know they are still breathing, have a pulse and that apart from the 'whisper' that industry will be 'pleasantly surprised' with the new DAS. Just say something – anything positive would do.

It's a waste of wind – screaming in space – but this pathetic, embarrassing pantomime has to stop...

Toot toot (Mk 2).

Last edited by Kharon; 24th Oct 2014 at 21:05. Reason: Twas on the good ship Venus - my boy you should have seen us. etc
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2014, 00:22
  #2310 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Point of difference within M&Ms personal kingdom??

CASA and ATSB have done that because they know they have the blessing of the Secretary and Minister, and they know Laborial Senate Committee members won't put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their Committee mouth is.
Yes Creamy largely due to you we - the great unwashed and biggest risk to public safety in this country - the IOS are now very much educated in the fact that these - so called - safety agencies are merely taking the mickey bliss every time they front up to Estimates.
Awww. C'mon Creamie you have to admit it is entertaining watching the scumbags who are destroying our industry squirm.
Small satisfaction I know, but what else do we have?
True: The entertainment is some consolation.

I'd far prefer competent and honest government at all levels, though.
Hear..hear to that Creamy...

What I note Creamy is that every time Estimates do rock-on-round is that you never fail to put your two bob's worth in and even go to the trouble of finding your own favourite Hansard quote etc. Is this a perverse source of entertainment?? Or do you - like many others on here - hold out a faint candle of hope that one day...just one day we may get a true sign from above that our bastardised version of a plural democracy is not absolutely rooted (with a capital R) - sadly I think we live in false hope - although one only need look across the ditch to see that it is possible to do good things in government with not much more than a beautiful country. Of course NZed does not have to deal with an extra layer or two of bureaucracy - layers of bureaucracy that all have different, diverging & interweaving self-interests to protect...

However what really mystifies me is that in all the spin, bulldust, lies, deception & obfuscation on display in RRAT Estimates there is always at least one clear example - contrary to the rest of the inept, corrupt mob - that appears to be quietly and efficiently getting on with business underneath the Senators radar or personal interest. Although there is no doubt there is indeed friction somewhere within - appearances can be deceptive - the good discipline & united front displayed by AMSA in Estimates - but you have to say it is a truly remarkable POD...

For perhaps the morbid amusement of those watching the slowly but surely strangulation of a once small but flourishing GA industry here is my POD example for the weekend:

AMSA Hansard grab 20/10/14 is from a section where questioning went to Regs and the agency attempts to reduce compliance costs and simplify/reduce regulatory burden (i.e. RTRP):
Senator STERLE: What portion of the $60 million in portfolio savings to industry is AMSA responsible for?

Mr Kinley : I think it was around $10 million or $12 million.

Senator STERLE: How much of the target has been achieved so far?

Mr Kinley : I would have to say that at the moment we probably have not achieved much at all, apart from with Marine Orders part 54, which is about marine pilotage, where we think we have saved about $0.04 million for marine pilots, pilotage providers and training providers {fancy that a PS being full & frank not shirking/ducking/weaving/obfuscating the responsibilities just telling it as it is...I am an instant fan}
...From our National Standard for Commercial Vessels part C1, about accommodation arrangements and personal safety, we calculate there have been savings of around $5.85 million to industry. From Marine Orders part 42 we believe we have achieved savings of about $0.01 million. From National Standard for Commercial Vessels Part C7A, on safety equipment, we believe there is about $1.99 million.

Senator STERLE: Given that many of the savings are via regulatory adjustments, how does AMSA ensure that these savings do not impact on safety?

Mr Kinley : Because in all of our development of standards, it is all about managing risk. It is about looking at what these standards are meant to address and how they are administered, as well. In many cases it is about how these standards are administered—what paperwork people need to do and what sort of plan approval they need to do. It is also looking at, to be frank, a lot of standards which have not been reviewed in a long time and looking at what the contemporary risks are and how we can better achieve an equivalent level of safety with less cost to industry.

Senator STERLE: Can you tell us then how AMSA would assure itself that you would minimise any environmental damage through these savings, like damage to the reef?

Mr Kinley : Certainly the only one of those standards which is relevant to the reef standard is Marine Orders part 54 for marine pilotage. We have been continually working to improve safety in the reef, so we have certainly not lessened any of the standards about how pilotage is done. We have been enhancing training requirements and competency requirements there. Those savings are about reporting, from the pilot providers for example, to us and requiring fewer forms to be filled in. It is about administrative savings.

Senator STERLE: I want to talk about consultation and regulatory change. Can you tell us what stakeholder consultation AMSA undertakes when it proposes changes.

Mr Kinley : With all of our marine orders, again, and with all of our standards, we have consultations which, for the marine orders in particular, are quite generally targeted to the specific industry that is involved. For example, with Marine Orders part 54, about coastal pilotage, a lot of the consultation was with the pilotage providers in particular, who were being regulated; the pilots who were involved; and ship owners and shipping associations. We also, of course, consult with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and other partner organisations.

Senator STERLE: Sorry to cut you off, Mr Kinley. Because you are so far away, you cannot feel the chair's breath on your neck like I can! I am going to throw three questions at you, and if you could answer them very quickly I would appreciate it. Will AMSA respond to stakeholder comments publicly and publish justifications for changes you make—including, where appropriate, cost-benefit analysis—in future?

Mr Kinley : Yes, we do where we are able to as people give us submissions.

Senator STERLE: Is it the case that AMSA must consult with social partners when making changes to international conventions like the IMO International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and of course the ILO labour convention?

Mr Kinley : It is only the ILO that talks about social partners.
Senator STERLE: Okay—not the IMO.

Mr Kinley : But we certainly do consult with industry and with employees. We certainly consult with the maritime unions when we do amend marine orders.

Senator STERLE: Okay—so that happens every time. AMSA takes it upon itself not to worry, that you are forced into it—you will do it with the IMO as well as the ILO. My last question—who are the social partners?

Mr Kinley : Under the terms of the International Labour Organisation, the social partner in Australia for the ship owners is the Australian Shipowners Association. Generally, I think, the Maritime Union of Australia is considered the employee social partner, and I understand that the arrangement is to consult with the other two maritime unions.

Senator WILLIAMS: In the AMSA streamlining review that has been carried out, have you identified any areas that need attention?

Mr Kinley : The streamlining review is about the domestic commercial vessel standards, and there have been quite a few concepts which have been published on our website. We have been very transparent about what they are. There have been a number of areas which have been identified.
Senator WILLIAMS: Will these feed into the government's red tape reduction agenda?

Mr Kinley : We started the process before that agenda started because, again, a lot of these requirements have been in place since time immemorial, and we thought it was well timed to examine what the contemporary safety needs are for a lot of these standards.

Senator WILLIAMS: The government has to simply look at your website and they can see those red tape reductions.

Mr Kinley : We certainly do report upon the streamlining process on our website.
The highlighted part will help with my POD comparison to CAsA later on but for now here is part of the AMSA Estimates segment in pictures... {Minus the silly Green's Senator dressed like a canary....unfortunately with the other silly political point scoring Green's Senator - ChemtrailMilne...}

Now we fast fwd to the CAsA segment which focusses again on part 1 of the captured video footage...

...and this part where Senator Conroy questions various inept, obstructive members of the current (441) FF executive team in regards to the projected RTR savings in Part 21... :
Senator CONROY: Is it still the case that CASA has been asked to identify the $12 million dollars in savings to industry within your portfolio?

Mr Farquharson : That is correct.

Senator CONROY: Can I refer to the one saving identified by CASA—and you may have heard it mentioned already today—part 21: which additional countries—and I think we may have got some information earlier today, Mr Mrdak?

Mr Mrdak : We did.

Senator CONROY: But for the purpose of mutual recognition in relation to aircraft airworthiness, I think we got that list earlier. Do you have it handy, Mr Farquharson?

Mr Farquharson : Mr Boyd will be able to assist us.

Mr Boyd : I do not have the list in front of me, but I think your question referred to some savings that were identified—

Senator CONROY: I am asking which countries under a particular one—21?
Mr Boyd : That are listed as preferred countries, we have—

Senator CONROY: That are now recognised by Australia for the purposes of mutual recognition, which has been done as a saving?

Mr Boyd : Years. That particular exercise was not part of the savings for that particular point you are making. That part 21 provision that claimed the savings was actually against defects that were being assessed against various defects within aircraft. In fact, the saving was not against the provisions for the recognised countries; it was actually another part of 21.

Senator CONROY: Okay. Could you explain to the committee how those savings have been calculated? Are you finding fewer defects or are you looking for fewer defects?

Mr Boyd : No, it was a mechanism allowing operators and maintenance control organisations to be able to manage the defects in a manner that was both safe but also more effective.

Senator CONROY: And what was that process change?

Mr Boyd : Perhaps I could call on our executive manager standards to give you more technical details.

Senator CONROY: Yes, that would be great.

Mr Ward : In relation to the cost saving that you are inquiring about, the amendment was made to part 21 to provide the operators with greater opportunity and flexibility to manage the deferral of defects on their aircraft. The deferral of those defects in all cases needs to be assessed against the appropriate design and certification standards for the aircraft.
It introduced some additional flexibility that the operators did not have and would, in other circumstances, have required them to revert to CASA to get that approval.

Senator CONROY: So they do not have to tell you anymore that they have done it?

Mr Ward : No, what they have to do is defer the defect in accordance with a process and procedure and make the engineering assessment to the design standard that is applicable to the deferral of that defect.

Senator CONROY: Unfortunately, it is late at night so I am not just quite following exactly what that means in English.

Mr Ward : Okay. There are a number of mechanisms that allow an operator to defer a defect on an aircraft.

Senator CONROY: What does 'defer a defect' mean? A defect is still a defect; what you mean is defer the repairs to a defect?

Mr Ward : That is correct—defer the repair of the defect. In some cases, the manufacturer will provide pre-approved documentation that will allow you to defer the repair of the defect to a later point in time. In other cases, the deferral of the defect to a later point in time can be justified through engineering analysis of the defect to the design standard for the aircraft.

Senator CONROY: Okay. So this is a paperwork issue that allows you to defer repairs to defects?

Mr Ward : That is correct.

Senator CONROY: So currently, you require them to repair the defect? They do not have access to this pre-approved paperwork?

Mr Ward : They have access to some of the pre-approved paperwork, but what the change to the legislation did was to introduce or allow another mechanism that they previously did not have access to. So it gave them greater flexibility.

Senator CONROY: So what was the other mechanism?
Mr Ward : That was to allow them to do the assessment against the design standard. Previously they would have had to approach CASA for an exemption to operate the aircraft.

Senator CONROY: Right. Okay—I might come back to that in a second. I just want to come back to your answer, Mr Boyd. Did you provide us with the answer to question 74 from the last estimates?

My reading of that answer is the exact opposite to the answer you have just given us, which is that it was not part of the savings. My reading of this answer is that it is part of the savings.

Dr Aleck : We do not appear to have question 234 in our packs. Could you read it to me?

Senator CONROY: It says:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority … is progressing initiatives to change a number of regulatory and service delivery processes to minimise the regulatory compliance and/or administrative burden …

These initiatives include:
- amendments to Part 141 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations … to reduce the complexity of flight training organisation approvals;
- amendments to CASR Part 61 …
… … …
- amending CASR Part 21 …

You state that this is part of this and then you just told the committee a moment ago that it was not part of this.

Mr Boyd : The part that we did amend, that was part 21, as Mr Ward just explained, to do with the defect referral process. That is part of part 21.

Senator CONROY: Maybe it is late and I am still a bit slower than I should be. You are saying that this is not part of a savings-to-industry measure?
Mr Boyd : What I am saying is that CASA part 21 was part of the industry savings measures, but the provision within part 21 was the provision that Mr Ward has just explained.

Senator CONROY: So it is part of the savings measures?
Mr Boyd : Yes.

Senator CONROY: Which was the part that was not part of the savings measures?

Mr Boyd : The part to do with the recognition of other approvals from overseas.

Senator CONROY: That was done and has nothing to do with this?

Mr Boyd : No, it had nothing to do with the savings measures.
Now if Senator Conroy came out of that exchange with a clearer picture on where the RTR savings are and what they are, then he is a far superior being than I would have ever given him credit for...

OK (POD) now compare the above nearly 40 paragraph dialogue with multiple identities to AMSA's CEO Mr Kinley open & frank dialogue which included the example of MO Part 54...

This POD says to me that within the current morass of bureaucratic & political self-interest/preservation it is possible - with the right people and mindset - to have an acceptable level of trust & consultation between the regulator and industry that will help to encourage future investment & growth within that industry...

The solution is obvious there is just no political/bureaucratic will - or a miniscule with the balls who is not mesmerised by the MOAS - to change the current status quo...


Ps While on AMSA congrats to Cobham for being rewarded the next AMSA SAR tier one fixed wing contract, looks like a good future gig - Challenger 604 "Nemo II" - for those interested... Cobham wins $640m AMSA search and rescue contract

Last edited by Sarcs; 25th Oct 2014 at 01:43.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2014, 19:31
  #2311 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sunday ramble:

What, exactly is Corporate Services? Watching Part 3 of the Sarcs provided – video - (thanks mate) is a bit like watching grid-iron football. Where they change the entire team every five minutes depending on what they are trying to achieve.

I am always amused by and enjoy the bits where a question is asked – looks left and right are exchanged – then someone calls on a 'colleague' to come and explain away, I won't say answer, the issue at hand. It is intriguing that the 'exec' can't ever quite 'recollect' the details but, can always, without fail, name and summon another talking head who has an almost perfect memory of part of the story – with 'from memory' lapses, but can identify another with precision; one who has yet another part of the yarn. More like servicing corporate, than corporate services. Marvellous to behold, should be made into a television soap opera.

For example – Sterle brings up 'credit cards' – (blank looks, WOW out of his seat like it was biting him) team change. It always intrigues me that the likes of WOW instinctively know when its 'all change' time; they must practice for hours, like those synchronised swimmers. Amazing stuff – if you like that kind of thing.

Enter the Executive manager – corporate services; who kicks off the segment and carries the ball until the opposition forwards challenge – flick pass – enter the chief financial officer, who has slithered into the still warm WOW seat, to beguile the Senators. You'd think that with hundreds of credit cards floating about the place, the CFO would have the normal system in place where monthly 'expenses' have to be submitted and money returned to the spender against receipts; rather than checking every card transaction, just in case someone slipped the odd sandwich and Coke onto the gifted credit card. It must be impossible to pick up the dodgy "between $5 and $90" transactions.

Almost all the 'good', undetected FRAUD schemes rely on a steady flow of small, insignificant amounts being 'milked' from a much larger money stream. $50 here, $90 there it's not very long before the 'beer and baccy' bill is paid; and or , junior's Ukulele lessons; and or, Mum's yoga class is being fully supported from the massive amounts of industry funds floating about. Hell, ASA chewed up $90,000,000 collected from the long suffering travelling public without so much as a belch. Perhaps that corporate giant the Auditor General could take a little look-see; just to be sure that the biccy tin donations paid for the Tim Tams and the Guide dog collection tin actually got to the dogs home (bless 'em – every last one).

No matter, there are 441 staff employed in corporate services to supervise the activities of 70 field operatives. The Jordan 'super market' fairy tale typifies how the scam works – he expects us to believe that the average CASA employee can't differentiate between the company card and their personal card. That notion, stand alone begs many questions

Layer upon layer of corporate top cover. It's like trying to pin a fart to the wall. But I'm certain that eventually we shall find one of the 441 employees of 'corporate services' who is essential to the safety of the Australian travelling public, one with some idea of which end of the aircraft emits the smoke and noise.

Can't support the Creampuff notion of it being a joke though; perhaps I've lost my sense of humour – I shall check. Pinch me Minnie – wake me up from this 'Pay-Wave' nightmare.

"With the sleep of dreams comes nightmares".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Sunday indulgence.
To die, to sleep.
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
The sleep of reason produces monsters.

Wiki – "Goya imagines himself asleep amidst his drawing tools, his reason dulled by slumber and bedeviled by creatures that prowl in the dark. The work includes owls that may be symbols of folly and bats symbolising ignorance. The artist's nightmare reflected his view of Spanish society, which he portrayed in the Caprichos as demented, corrupt, and ripe for ridicule."

The full epigraph for capricho No. 43 reads; "Fantasy abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters: united with her, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of their marvels.
End Sunday ramble.

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Oct 2014 at 19:33. Reason: Nice work Sarcs – Tim Tam despatched.
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2014, 20:27
  #2312 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
[D]o you - like many others on here - hold out a faint candle of hope that one day...just one day we may get a true sign from above that our bastardised version of a plural democracy is not absolutely rooted (with a capital R)[?]
You answered that for me:
[S]adly I think we live in false hope.
Two epiphanies led me to that conclusion.

First, after about 40 years of watching, very closely, the machinations of government, I realised that when one 'side' wins, both 'sides' win. They do almost exactly the same things: It's just the mates who get the favours that change.

Neither 'side' has an interest in changing the phony competition because, sooner or later, each 'side' will get its turn at taxing like robber barons and spending like drunken sailors. Both 'sides' have put a lot of work into building a 'pliable' administration to passionately dedicate itself to protecting this system.

Secondly, and related to the first, I realised that there are lots of people prepared to work for organisations for which the people have no respect, or even have active disdain, and prepared to contribute to the achievement of outcomes to which those people have personal or moral objections. I don't know how they do it, but there are lots and lots of them doing the politicians' dirty work. I might be naive, because that was quite a revelation to me.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2014, 00:39
  #2313 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 48
Posts: 177
Gorging on taxpayer money!

Firstly, there should be a royal commission into Australia's government agencies - CASA, ATSB, ASA. A look into the corruption, incompetence and systemic bullying and malfeasance.

Secondly, there should be holistic independent audits of each alphabet soup organisations finances by a third party such as KPMG or someone similar.

Thirdly, the CASA generated crock of steaming shite excuse for 'suspect' credit card transactions being due to 'staff walking past pay wave machines' etc is one of the lamest, deceptive, hilarious responses I think I have ever heard! How unfortunate that this particularly only occurs with government employees, oh my how unusual?

Fourth, Frau Staib - Oh you naughty girl. To start with she would have known every intimate detail about the $20k credit card fraud. Anything, and I mean anything that could blow up into an issue that affects the departments reputation and in turn that of the Minister, is a serious concern, and I can assure you that this is one of those issues. Staib would have been across every inch of this issue. Then she covers it over with the old classic 'I don't recall'. All pollies and bureaucrats are taught that trick. It's a fool proof way of lying about an issue without perjuring yourself, it's how you don't say yes or no and therefore can't get done for lying if the truth comes out, 'you simply say I don't recall, I don't remember, or something like 'not to my recollection'!

It has become more transparently obvious that these government department are staffed and run like a Mafia. Monies (vast amounts) come in via the taxpayer, get filtered through the organisation and then spent on individuals in any way they can spend it to further their own self interests. Study trips, corporate meals, furniture, 5 star accomodation, business travel, A380 endorsements, computer software and flight training schools!! The list is endless thanks to the amount of taxpayer money that is milked so as to fund such decadence.
Now how do I get me one of these jobs? Because if I do get one I can assure you that I too will be raping the public purse and hoovering these taxpayer troughs until my stomach and wallet are exploding at the seams. It is part and parcel of each government employees position description, is it not?

Oink oink
Soteria is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2014, 03:01
  #2314 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
QUOTE Now how do I get me one of these jobs? QUOTE.

You first need to know the secret handshake. (am I close).
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2014, 07:24
  #2315 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 414
So if Ms Staib was one of the best and the brightest that the airforce could produce its no wonder Defence procurement is in the mess that it is. Wasn't she an AVM?
Lookleft is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2014, 07:58
  #2316 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 547
$20,000 on tap and is a minimum of 200 transactions assuming the $100 limit and all transactions were around that figure. Really! Surely they would have spotted that number of unreconciled transactions?

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 26th Oct 2014 at 08:07. Reason: Maths
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2014, 10:27
  #2317 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 48
Posts: 177
Biccy, it all depends on how big the fish was. If it was a senior player at ASA they could have a very high monthly allowance and therefore racked up the bill rather quickly, without raising to much suspicion. However if they were purchasing $2k per night call girls, Versace handbags, big screen TV's from Harvey Normans or gold bullion from the Perth mint you might think it would have been picked up sooner? It could have also been done on a smaller scale with smaller amounts over a long period of time. It's a tad hard not having all the details on hand to make a totally accurate summation. It also could have been a more lowly ranked minion who has enjoyed splurging a little on some of life's finer trappings - fuel for the 182, KFC for the family, inflatable balls to take to the MCG for the cricket or 'interesting attire' for the next Hellfire party at Hoody's place!
Either way, the rorter was obviously a thorough buffoon. It's not hard when you are a public servant to use taxpayers money to further your own personal advantage and make it all appear 'legitimate' and 'above board'. Then again maybe the ASA person will use the CASA excuse and say that the $20k of transactions was due to his wallet accidentally brushing past pay wave machines and somehow charging up said items?
Soteria is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2014, 11:35
  #2318 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 547
One thing that is clear is that it is very easy to bamboozle on safety issues and people and the media not being too interested it isn't the same with finances and tax payers money.

I hadn't picked up on it being Asa and casa. With the leaky chips paying for other transactions they should have stopped accepting those cards?

I know your right soteria depends who you are. The bullied will be over scrutinized every dollar and cent poured over.

Mr Mrdak praising Terry is he on for the DAS job proper as Sunny predicts? I think so.

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 26th Oct 2014 at 11:49. Reason: ?????!!!!!!!?????
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2014, 19:15
  #2319 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Draft or Daft.

Against my better judgement, I had a another, final, look at the Beaker show; just in case there was anything of value in it.

Dolan - "Clarification of the 'factual' content would be useful" – means what?

The facts are simple – and were clearly identified by the Senate committee in their report. Waiting for this now compromised Canadian report and asking questions about it at estimates is just not worth the time. The original will never see the light of day and the tight, tight focus on ToR along with the 'factual' contents being edited by the people the report is auditing, makes the whole thing farcical.

At least the MH 370 investigation has the right man at the helm; can't have Houston he is not so obliging when it comes to the cover up of the duck up, whereas Beaker has had all the practice he'll ever need and necessary experience in estimates questioning to deflect, delay and dilute the 'factual' content.

Nope, the Canucks can put their 'factually' edited report where the sun never shines; it is disappointing to think that they would stoop to the Beaker level of obfuscation. We should just pay the bill and bury the report off Norfolk, under the Westwind along with our national integrity, pride and any hope of ever holding up our heads as aviators. That will at least give us the time to closely observe how the study of Chemilnecal Trails are a subject worthy of Senate time.

I'm thinking of signing up with Soteria – get me one of these jobs; the ones that come with a credit card, iron clad top cover, no responsibility, school teachers hours and a chance to hammer my peers (with impunity). All I'd have to do is sell my soul – fair trade some would say. But then, I'd miss the sunshine, the fresh air and the ability to sleep each night and shave each morning.

Aye – it's a puzzle.

Last edited by Kharon; 27th Oct 2014 at 08:09. Reason: Tu-tu or two too many to's. Hard to decide.
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2014, 22:17
  #2320 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Obfuscation & the public interest pendulum.

Ms Staib's performance in last week's Estimates: The strange mixed & inconsistent message from MS between one potential case of credit card fraud (in the courts) & another (up to 20k) abuse of credit card (dismissal)....was certainly quite bizarre.. But what I found most disturbing was the (almost dismissive) attitude of MS when questioned on the spending of literally 10s of millions of (96 of them) public funded monies by ASA...

Although that only calls into question Ms Staib's performance & suitability for her position as CEO of ASA - because ASA are only really applying due process for the funds once pax numbers pass a certain threshold (i.e. 350k) for upgrading fire fighting services at an airport.

My question is that in terms of 'in the public interest' is the ASA CEO ineptitude & incompetence - on display at Estimates - any worse than Beaker's aiding & abetting the CAsA attempted cover-up of PelAir?? In particular the Beaker decision not to spend the extra taxpayer funds required to recover VH-NGA & it's blackbox - after all they did have the bloody thing roped off...

Beaker - MH370 search perfect muppet for the job??
Kharon - At least the MH 370 investigation has the right man at the helm; can't have Houston he is not so obliging when it comes to the cover up of the duck up, whereas Beaker has had all the practice he'll ever need and necessary experience in estimates questioning to deflect, delay and dilute the 'factual' content.
Interesting point you make "K"...

Came across an article from IBT (International Business Times) which would give credence to your summation:
MH370 Search Update: Expert Highlights Cover Up Of Malaysia And Australia In Withholding Plane’s Recordings

By Athena Yenko| October 26, 2014 1:32 AM EST

The first four hours into the disappearance of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was crucial to the investigation. What transpired during this critical period were surely documented by different audio recording contained in recorders and hard disks that up until now are not being released in public and being withheld from the families of the passengers. Neither Malaysia nor Australia is releasing such recordings and hard disks; therefore, these two nations could be guilty of a cover up for something that remains convoluted and unknown today, an aviation expert alleged.

.ads_rectangle_img_content_left {background-color: #FFFFFF;font-size: 1px;line-height: 1px;margin: 0;padding: 0;}#content #left_tool{width:300px !important;}#content #left_tool_1{display: inline;float: left;margin-right: 15px;width:180px !important;}Des Ross, a pilot and air traffic management specialist with more than 35 years in aviation industry, wants to know "what secret was there and what were" Malaysia and Australia "so protective about." An aviation advisor in South Sudan, he wants to understand "what needed to be kept secret from the world even when 239 people were lost?"

Ross highlighted the very known and given fact that Malaysian Air Force has the capacity to intercept an unidentified aircraft; that it could instruct its military pilot to track a plane that its radar found to be flying out to the Andaman Sea. But it had chosen and is continuing to withhold the information.

"What is the secret they were guarding? Why is there still no information in the public domain about what happened that night during the first four hours?" Ross asked. He highlighted that answers to these questions are contained somewhere but are being hidden.

He said the pilot/air traffic controller recording contains the answers to his questions. A separate recording of the voice coordination between the air traffic controllers in Kuala Lumpur and Ho Chi Minh City - done via a voice/ data link and kept for 30 days - has the information. A recorded communications between military air defence officer and the civil air traffic controller in Kuala Lumpur control centre also holds information - assuming that they talked with each other in tracking the "unidentified" plane; if they did not, then they commit criminal negligence. Moreover, all telephone conversations between military centre and the civil ATC centre are recorded.

"Nobody can tell us that the recordings do not exist." Ross argued. Malaysia and Australia "could be accused of covering up vital information which would help the families and independent investigators to work out what happened," he upheld.
Meanwhile, Transport Ministry Secretary-General Datuk Ruhaizah Mohamed Rashid said that Indonesia has yet to report of any spotted debris from MH370.

Any time that debris turns up in Indonesia, it will be brought to Australia for analysis. Australian authorities will then send its report to Boeing for verification, Rashid told a press briefing conducted by Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) chief coordinator Judith Zielke and Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Peter Forley.

To contact the editor, e-mail: [email protected]

{Comment: Des Ross also published in ABAP online - Expert challenges MH370 story}.

Mr Ross certainly raises some questions that test the veracity & credibility of the Malaysian (& by association ATsB) assumptions for basing their search for MH370 in the Southern Indian Ocean...

Moral of the story: If indeed the whole search mission does go sour (i.e. cock-up) and needs to be stonewalled - always pick a muppet with no cred over an Air Marshal (retired or active) every time...

Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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