Merged: Senate Inquiry
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...
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...
Once again lets read what has actually been quoted. Tim Clark is expressing doubt about the Malaysian Government's statements about the incident:
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?
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.
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..
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:
And on the public scrutiny oversight option:
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..:
MTF..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
...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...
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Examples of unnecessary divergence from international standards can be submitted at the cuttingredtape.gov.au website.
"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
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:
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...
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
- 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.
- 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.
- (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:
- 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)).
- On 8 October 2013, Ms Bijl applied for internal review of CASA’s decision.
- 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).
- On 6 January 2014, the applicant sought IC review of this decision under s 54L of the FOI Act.
Decision
Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner
3 October 2014
- 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:
- the Audit Report falls within the scope of the FOI request
- 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
- 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
- an edited copy of the Request Form and Audit Report should be prepared under s 22 and released to the applicant.
Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner
3 October 2014
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...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Bravo Ms. Toohey, well done indeed......
Sarcs -
Toot tooee.
"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..}
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
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.
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".
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...:
MTF...
Ps That statement that Heff reads out - from the doc he waves around - sounds strangely familiar??
"...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
20 mins
9.00–9.15 pm
[Tea Break]
9.15–9.30 pm - Aviation and Airports Division (cont.)
15 mins
Ps That statement that Heff reads out - from the doc he waves around - sounds strangely familiar??
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):
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...
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.)
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.)
.. 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...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The leaf was imaginary too. About as convincing as wrestling.
The bit about part 21 I think they were claiming something pre 2005 regarding acceptance of overseas approvals in the earlier bit with mr mrdak. Remember part 21 is based on FAA too not EASA like more recent parts.
The bit about part 21 I think they were claiming something pre 2005 regarding acceptance of overseas approvals in the earlier bit with mr mrdak. Remember part 21 is based on FAA too not EASA like more recent parts.
Senator Fawcett was there. Most of his and other Senators' questions were put on notice.
The single biggest issue that got a number of Senators agitated was misuse of credit cards.
Poor Ms Staib did a good impression of a rabbit in the spotlight.
The excuse reported by the CASA finance guy as the usual excuse for improper transactions on CASA credit cards was laughable.
All zephyrs in thimbles of course.
The single biggest issue that got a number of Senators agitated was misuse of credit cards.
Poor Ms Staib did a good impression of a rabbit in the spotlight.
The excuse reported by the CASA finance guy as the usual excuse for improper transactions on CASA credit cards was laughable.
All zephyrs in thimbles of course.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Run, Rabbit, Run!"
Oh, I don't know, there were some pretty penetrating questions about curbing kerbside smokers outside airports. That is an important issue and well worth the committee time – definitely of national importance. I am amazed at the insight of some of our highly paid Senators....
But, I did feel that the theme song for the evening was - "Run, Rabbit, Run!". (Harry Bidgood, 1939). I did stumble across an interesting article on Chesney Allen, which gave an insight into the times when the song was "Churchill's favourite Blitz-Time song, by many accounts". (From the Noel Gay, Ralph Butler show "The Little Dog Laughed"--the original 1939 version features British comedy team Flanagan & Allen).
Jokes aside – there was some pretty heavy lifting done last evening and some fascinating little sidebars (e.g. The Muppet show version of MH 370) - perhaps the video and Hansard will assist to turn Creamy's zephyrs into the genuine tea cup version. To quote the indefatigable Kelpie – more to follow.
Added – Estimates – Link. For those who missed it. The fun starts at about 02:25, and the ATSB/ CASA show is towards the end over the last 90 minutes.
But, I did feel that the theme song for the evening was - "Run, Rabbit, Run!". (Harry Bidgood, 1939). I did stumble across an interesting article on Chesney Allen, which gave an insight into the times when the song was "Churchill's favourite Blitz-Time song, by many accounts". (From the Noel Gay, Ralph Butler show "The Little Dog Laughed"--the original 1939 version features British comedy team Flanagan & Allen).
Jokes aside – there was some pretty heavy lifting done last evening and some fascinating little sidebars (e.g. The Muppet show version of MH 370) - perhaps the video and Hansard will assist to turn Creamy's zephyrs into the genuine tea cup version. To quote the indefatigable Kelpie – more to follow.
Added – Estimates – Link. For those who missed it. The fun starts at about 02:25, and the ATSB/ CASA show is towards the end over the last 90 minutes.
Last edited by Kharon; 20th Oct 2014 at 22:30. Reason: Link for video
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terry doesn't like being up late these days.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 20th Oct 2014 at 23:38. Reason: Procrastinators meeting has been postponed.