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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 9th Dec 2014, 20:29
  #2521 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sick, sad and ever so slightly mad.

Lefty –"It would have been better for the TSBC to have redone the investigation."
Nicely phrased and asking all the right questions: the simple truths leaps off the page.

For example; had Dolan been in a position to defend the Pel-Air report then the Hansard statement would read differently; "No Senator, we stand firmly in complete support of our report, I can understand your concerns and suggest that you appoint an independent TSB, such as the Canadian TSBC to review our report". That sort of statement would throw down a challenge and if the review came back 'good', the Senators would have a slice of humble pie for morning tea. Neither Dolan, McComic or Mrdak would ever dare allow an independent review of Pel Air, the Senators were as safe as houses, and they knew it.

ED – "Reading the ATSB media release doesn't increase my confidence that an actual re-investigation will take place.
Slats –"Cover ups are vigorously defended until they become indefensible. Then they often collapse spectacularly as no one wants to be caught in the fallout."
ATSB, CASA and Mrdak will each have their 'own' translation of what the Canucks said, as will the SC ; they all will all read into it what they want to read; and, draw what little comfort and support they may from it. The stark reality is that they will have little option but to stand while an investigation and review of Pel Air is done, by honest men.

I have read the PAIN analysis of Pel Air and contributed in a small way to final draft. When Pel Air and other matters are dealt with impartially, openly and honestly then measured against the prescriptions in the MoU, the TSI Act, ICAO annexe 13 and the CASA protocols it becomes almost impossible to avoid drawing any conclusion other than that of the Australian system being totally perverted and manipulated to suit a predetermined outcome.

If we cannot trust our agencies to act honestly and responsibly in a comparatively 'insignificant' event; then how, in all the seven hells are they to be relied on when the stakes are much higher? This will be of no great comfort to those who have had loved ones killed or hurt in a domestic accident, even less to those praying for MH 370 to be found and a 'just' outcome.

DJ –"The next important step will be the renewal of the Federal Police investigation so as to bring those responsible to account and to prevent this from happening again in the future."
Speed and resolution should now be the public and industry demand. Between the hapless Minuscule and the departments an incredible amount of time, money and public patience has been squandered. The sums wasted would have paid for several new investigators for the undermanned ATSB. I have no idea what the Senate inquiry cost, no notion of what it cost to provide the final report; even less idea of what the Reverent Forsyth's tea party and our Canadian Autumn love in cost: but I expect it was 'significant'.

It's disgusting that this class of money must be spent to expose the deviations and manipulations of a government 'safety' body; which is required to act honourably. But to have those responsible for the behaviour of those agencies prepared to go to extraordinary lengths in defence of that corruption is an absolute international disgrace. It is a repugnant, calculated insult to those who rely government in times of their greatest anxiety, when their loved ones are involved in an accident or incident.

Name 'em, shame 'em and run 'em out of town on a rail; or be forever condemned as part of untrammelled, overt conspiracy to defraud the tax paying, air fare buying public. Have Dolan, McComic and Chambers provided value for money; or increased the safety of Australian travelling public? You know damn well; they have not, they have humiliated and shamed a once proud industry; yet there are those who would defend 'the system' and those who thrive on it. Shame, shame for Australia.

Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides,
Who covers faults at last with shame derides.
Well may you prosper.


Last edited by Kharon; 9th Dec 2014 at 21:20. Reason: PM me for the PGW confidential.
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 20:01
  #2522 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Don'tcha just love the way the lobotomy machinery swings into action at the time of year when sugar plums, Reindeer and school holidays are on the top the agenda, after a long hard year.

Rucking freemarkable, the way it works out, ain't it....

Last edited by Kharon; 10th Dec 2014 at 20:02. Reason: Well, a bump by any other name, works just as well; don't it?
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 22:03
  #2523 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 67
Posts: 1,129
since my carer tasks don't start until mid morning I normally sleep in.
today for the first time in my long involvement in aviation I woke at 3am and lay there laughing for an hour.

it seems that the voluminous new rules bought in under the watch of fearful minister Truss cause some problems.
when you receive a ramp check you have to show your licence.
for an organisation that earns its very keep from flying the need to have the licences to show is quite pressing.

seems that one of the spirit of australia (non alcoholic as befits pilots) organised all its 3000 or so pilots to submit their applications for the new licences on the same day.
no doubt to ensure they were all ready for the next ramp check.

quite uncoordinated and independently the pilots who have never had sex got similarly organised. as it happens they were to apply 2 days later.

seems someone among the Clueless and Seriously [email protected] has a drawer full of pre decimal money because the penny dropped.
a plaintive letter was sent to those who have never enjoyed sex to please delay putting in their applications since there was some difficulty being experienced in the processing.

seems that under minister truss's watch the key performance indicators are seriously sliding in one of his organisations.

you have to wonder why the organisation in question didn't predict the need?

so folks CAsA need all the help they can get.
get your "next licensing interaction with CAsA" in as quick as you can. it all helps.

W8 gives the pilot initiative a 5 star thumbs up.

Minister Truss if the key performance indicators slip any further there will be sure to be questions asked in parliament.
Honestly its enough to worry an incompetent into a medical condition.

...I feel another fit of laughter coming on...
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 07:03
  #2524 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
BRB hypothesis - Mandarin(s) Grand Plan for GA extinction. cont/-

{Note: In reference to the Bar Room Barrister's hypothesis as put fwd in Kharon's post - Two more for the miniscule pot.}

IMO there is much merit in the BRB hypothesis especially in light of some recent events & non-events...

So going along with the hypothesis it is first worth going back in time - to around October 2011 - where with the inspired appointments of McComic and muppet Beaker it appeared the Grand Plan was going along swimmingly...

The combined M&M committed team had just successfully obfuscated - with the aid of aviation hater Albo - one lone & independent Senator's *1 attempt to shine the spotlight on the MOAS and the GWM trough...

*1{NB: With the aid of one old grumpy Laborial but dis-credited Senator..}

M&M would have also thought he had the measure of a certain group of disgruntled IOS members - who were persistently banging on about Archerfield's proposed 2011-31 Master Plan - especially when he had already pencilled in on the dotted line Albo's signature.

Little was he to know that the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce (ACC) Inc. group would continue to persist and that a certain well informed, aviation savvy Senator was about to enter the fray...

So back to the Sup Estimates 2011 which started with Senator Fawcett questioning the Aviation & Airports mob - post #1638.

Next was ASA with DF opening up with this... :
Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, I take it Airservices Australia is still responsible for producing aeronautical publications.

Mr Russell: Yes, indeed.

Senator FAWCETT: In the WikiLeaks revelation that the FAA audit highlighted, one of their concerns was that navigation charts produced in Australia were not compliant with international standards. Do you have any comment on that revelation?

Mr Russell: I in particular do not, but my colleagues may. Mr Harfield, do you?

Mr Harfield: There were a number of issues raised in the audit where ICAO came in and had a look. The issue was that the standards that were portrayed were recommended practices. Our order was that we met all the requirements that we had to under the ICAO auspices, and therefore the issues that were brought up were just differences. We have worked through those and we have come to what I would say is a common understanding in ensuring that our practices do meet the ICAO regulations.

Senator FAWCETT: I will ask the same question of CASA later, but it strikes me that a number of things have come to the surface as a result of this ICAO/FAA audit. Do we not have an internal process within Australia where somebody who is knowledgeable but independent audits on a regular basis the product of Airservices?

Mr Harfield: There is an audit function that is carried out by CASA. One of the deficiencies that was found in the ICAO audit was that we do not currently have regulations in place for aeronautical information services and the regulation thereof, but there is a process already underway to establish those regulations.

Senator FAWCETT: What is the timeline for that?

Mr Harfield: You will have to take that up with CASA.

Senator FAWCETT: Even though you are doing it?

Mr Harfield: We are the service provider of the publications. We have input into it but, for the regulatory time frame for the regulations to come into effect, you would have to ask CASA. I am unaware of what the actual time frame is.

Senator FAWCETT: On a slightly different topic, do you still act on behalf of CASA to develop departure approach plates as part of the AIP publications for aircrew?

Mr Harfield: We are certified under CASA regulation part 173 to actually design and produce instrument approaches.

Senator FAWCETT: If there were a building development in a capital city that pushed the floor of the PANS-OPS criteria higher, you would be then required to modify approach plates?

Mr Harfield: If that was an approved variation and the PANS-OPS was varied then we would have to go back and revalidate the instrument approach. The instrument approach would have to then be authorised by not only our chief designer but also CASA. It has to be flight tested and approved but still has to stay within the approved design criteria.

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take this on notice if you need to, but could you come back to the committee with any situations where you have had to revise your PANS-OPS criteria as a result of urban development or city development in either the Brisbane or Sydney areas in particular, or anywhere in Australia, but particularly those two?

Mr Russell: We will take that on notice. There have been some issues that I would like to make sure we get right.

Senator FAWCETT: Could you expand on that, please, Mr Russell, and tell the committee what those issues have been.

Mr Russell: It is urban encroachment on major airports. I think you are probably pointing this way. In Sydney, for instance, there are a number of high-rises around the airport that fall into this category. There are a number of infrastructure developments close to the airport, again, that fall into this category. If we could have some time to research this properly, we will come back to you on notice if we may.

Mr Harfield: I just want to provide some clarity. What we will do is provide information where there has been a redesign or a variation as a result of a change being put in. We do not have the authority to change PANS-OPS criteria. I just wanted to make that clear.

Senator FAWCETT: Yes, I understand that. With the issues you are working through, Mr Russell, do you feel as though there are appropriate checks and balances in place such that, if a developer does actually put forward a proposal, the operator, CASA and Air Services Australia have opportunity in a transparent way to register their opposition to something which is going to adversely affect the operational capacity of an airport and the requirements of airlines to actually fly steeper gradients during departures or approaches?
Which is where for some strange reason M&M chimed in:
Mr Mrdak: This is an area of growing concern for us, as the department acknowledged before the dinner break. Mr Russell, Mr McCormick and I, as the aviation policy group, which is the CEOs of the aviation agencies, have discussed this issue at length. We have recognised the need to improve the processes involved in judging and advising. Also in relation to the point you raised, to some degree the aviation industry has worked hard to accommodate in the past some of these breaches of services. I think we have reached the point where we believe we can no longer do that. Hence there is some work happening at the moment where we have established a group of officers from our respective departments and agencies which is now working on a much more robust approach to, firstly, identifying potential breaches. As you know there are regulations under the Airports Act which provide for protection of prescribed airspace. How do we better identify those, how do we ensure that local and state governments are aware of it and how do we as the agencies get together much more effectively to make sure that those breaches of the services are no longer accommodated in the way that they have been?

Senator FAWCETT: Do you have a time frame for that work?

Mr Mrdak: Our officers have started talking about this in some detail. I expect that the next couple of months is when we will try and provide a much better approach to how we have handled this to date.

Senator FAWCETT: Do you have any plans for industry involvement so that they can have some input as to how their perspective can be incorporated?

Mr Mrdak: We certainly will. We have not got to that stage as yet. I think the first stage is for our officers to identify exactly what the current processes are and where the weaknesses are. That will then enable us to design a better way to handle this. As Mr Doherty and Mr Stone indicated in the evidence from the department a little earlier, this is an area which we are taking up with a great deal of strength with the states and their planning agencies.

Senator FAWCETT: I am very pleased to hear that. Could you take on notice to provide to the committee how industry will be involved, particularly how feedback around an application is transparent so that, rather than just being told consultation has occurred but not knowing whether all the submissions were positive or negative, industry know whether they are a lone voice or everyone else supported their position but, for some reason, the decision has gone the other way? That would be very useful.

Mr Mrdak: Certainly.
Then back to the subject of airports with CAsA which garnered a rather predictable response from Cromarty (in bold):
Senator FAWCETT: I do not believe that they were necessarily seeking compensation for it but I am happy to take that offline with you. Moving to some separate issues, we have had a number of operators from both Bankstown and Archerfield in particular talk to us about concerns around commercial development on airfields. The secretary and I have had some discussions in previous sessions around the different agencies that are involved in this, and CASA is clearly a key player in this space. The concerns that industry are coming back to us with are that either CASA is not being listened to or CASA is not concerned about some of the developments. Would you care to comment on how you see CASA's role in the current construct and whether you feel that CASA is empowered so that if you do see a safety concern, be it something in the OLS that is affecting operations at an airport or the PANS-OPS criteria more broadly, you have the remit and the authority to say no or if at the moment all you can do is make a recommendation.

Mr McCormick: I appreciate there has been quite a bit of discussion about this already and I will allow the secretary to speak if he wishes. We have heads of power for safety issues. If there is something that affects safety, we do have some ability to do things. We do not have any role to play in the planning environment or the infrastructure environment. Perhaps Mr Mrdak will say a few words on that.

Mr Mrdak: It comes back to my earlier comments. We recognise this is an area where there is a renewed focus by the agencies. The white paper certainly set out the need to safeguard and protect aviation activity. There is a very heightened focus by the government. We are undertaking the master planning process for the leased airports in this area, and we are looking to work much more closely with CASA than we have in the past.

Senator FAWCETT: With respect, Secretary, I am comfortable with your position. I am greatly heartened by it. I am keen to hear from CASA's perspective where they would like to see their position in all of this, because in the safety role you have a key part to play in preserving the efficacy, the efficiency and the safety of particularly our secondary airports.

Mr McCormick: We do take that very seriously. I will ask Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager of Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation, to give you a few more technical points on where we are.

Mr Cromarty: I think the issue boils down to the point that the aerodrome is a piece of infrastructure which is owned by somebody, quite often the local council, and the council has to take a commercial decision between what they consider to be, in relative terms, the benefit of whatever the development is that they want to put on the aerodrome and the benefit of the aviation infrastructure. As far as CASA are concerned, we have very few powers to restrict developments of the nature you are talking about.

Senator FAWCETT: I accept that from a development perspective, but MOS 139 and other regulations point to the fact that the primary concern is the safety and the ongoing utility of the airport as an air operating environment, both the airspace and the surface, to make sure there is continuing access. And the lease that the Commonwealth has signed with airports such as Bankstown and Archerfield, as the two that are in question at the moment, go to the fact that we need to preserve that safe operating environment. What people come back to us with frequently is: 'If CASA has not objected then we are good to go.' What we do not see in the public space is a transparent record of what CASA's position has been. For example, with runway 28R at Archerfield, when people have had concerns about the new corporate hangars and the Warbird hangars, what has CASA's position been? Do you have concerns about the IFR take-offs, the restricted runway length and the potential impact of someone doing an overshoot off the 28 RNAV?

Mr Cromarty: As I understand it, the situation at Archerfield was that the hangar was in a position where it was at the precise point where there was an anomaly between the obstacle limitation surfaces and the PANS-OPS surfaces. Now, when I was watching the committee broadcast earlier, I heard there was some question about the diligence we had put into this. I can assure you we spent a huge amount of time trying to come to a compromise position which would allow the airport to continue to operate as it had done and comply with the regulations that we could comply with. In the end, Airservices and CASA came to a compromise position, a conservative position, which facilitated the airport's operations yet also enabled us to comply as we could with the contradictory requirements of the ICAO standards.

As far as Bankstown is concerned, the withdrawal of a runway, as I said before, is a commercial decision for the airport; and, provided the airport in all considerations complies with MOS part 139, then CASA is satisfied.

Senator FAWCETT: So you are satisfied that there are suitable options for a student pilot flying a Cessna with a 10 knot cross-wind limit to land in adverse wind conditions, in a north-southerly or a northerly wind in the Sydney Basin?

Mr Cromarty: I would say flying ops is not my area. However, having been a flying instructor I would say that it is the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the student can fly in the conditions they are flying in.

Senator FAWCETT: Conditions do vary, so that is not necessarily a fail-safe. Coming back to runway 28 at Archerfield, you talked about that overlap between the two points. It does not take away from the fact, though, that the information that is provided, for example into the en-route sub—because it is only a registered airfield as opposed to a certified airfield—comes from the operator and the description of 150 used in that equation, as opposed to the 180 from my readings of the MOS and the tables in there, particularly 7.1-2, appears to be an error. Yet that appears to be the basis of the take-off requirement. Is there any other circumstance in Australia where the compromise you have referred to of having to keep that obstacle visual during an IFR take-off has been applied, or is that unique to Archerfield?

Mr Cromarty: Not that I am aware of, no.

Senator FAWCETT: So it is unique, it is unusual, but it maybe accounts for the take-off. But what about the overshoot case, where somebody has come off the 28 RNAV, is forced to do an overshoot because of heavy rain and so does not have visual contact with what is now quite a large obstacle that intrudes into the airspace?

Mr Cromarty: May I take that on notice and get the definitive answer for you?

Senator FAWCETT: Please do, but it just highlights the fact that the system of oversight—putting safety ahead of the commercial interest—has broken down and there are operators who are at risk because of that breakdown in the system.

Mr McCormick: I do not think that is correct. I am not sure that that is the case and that we necessarily agree with that.

Senator FAWCETT: I will be happy to see your answer on notice because, as I read the various publications, that is the situation I am led to understand to be the case. That is certainly also the contention of the operating fraternity at Archerfield.

Mr McCormick: If the question on notice has some specificity about what you want addressed, we will certainly get you the answer.

Senator FAWCETT: I will also be placing some questions on notice about the runway and safety area on 28 right about the culvert and the development of the auction site within the public safety area as defined by the Queensland government and the fact that that is not as advertised originally. There are significant obstacles, large plant, in that area.
Finally we have Beaker who also essentially obfuscates responsibility for safety risk mitigation at secondary airports...:
Senator FAWCETT: Undoubtedly, you have been following the proceedings for the last couple of hours—

Mr Dolan: I have.

Senator FAWCETT: so you probably know exactly where I am heading. Your name has been taken in vain around Archerfield and the concern around runway 28 right there. With your report 38 of 2008 you did great work in identifying discrepancies in needing to move forward. I have a few questions to try to get some details on the table. Your report has been used to essentially say there was a discrepancy and that is being addressed but there is no safety issue. NOTAM C250/07, which was mentioned in your report, requires a reduction in the TORA and TODA for runway 28 right for IFR departures from 1,400 to 1,095 metres. If there was only a discrepancy and there was no issue, why was a NOTAM necessary?

Mr Dolan: There was a potential safety issue in terms of the location of the hangar which led to the intervention in terms of the shortening of the usable runway. Perhaps it is worth taking a step back. You have clearly read the report. The terms of reference that were set were limited. The questions we were trying to address were: first of all, was there a problem with the obstacle limitation surface as it was in place following adjustments in the light of the construction of the hangar? Secondly, there was the problem of the actual design of the departure. We still take the view that at the time we were looking at it, the obstacle limitations surfaces and how they operated for the airport were safe. If one were doing this from zero, one would probably not have constructed the hangar where it is, but we were satisfied that the steps that had been taken to ensure safety operated well and that the instrument departure design was sound in itself but did very much highlight a problem with the ICAO standards and a need for clarification.

The reason we limited it to that was that we have received through our confidential reporting system some quite specific concerns about those issues. I want to make clear, the limits were placed for good reasons on what was available to us at the time. I understand that other issues have been raised since, but they had not been raised with us.

Senator FAWCETT: So noting the limited terms of reference and constraints put on you and just coming to the actual report then, one of the mitigating circumstances was obviously a reduction in the length of the runway. That NOTAM has subsequently been rescinded and the notes that were on the airfield charts have been removed. Other than the ERSA supplement which still identifies that restriction, a lot of the other things that would normally be required under the MOS, such as 'distance to run available' type signage, are not present at Archerfield. Do you consider that is still a safety issue?

Mr Dolan: I would have to say that since the completion of that report we have not done any further review. This sort of investigation is at the margins of what we would normally do. The issues in play here are essentially regulatory. We have not had any occurrences reported to us that I am aware of—and Mr Walsh may correct me on that. We have got no basis in terms of our normal system of getting information about safety occurrences in the system to say that something needs another look.

Senator FAWCETT: I understand and accept that. The problem that we are facing is that it is a case of following the bouncing ball, and the bouncing ball tends to rest with the ATSB report, and people say that there is no problem because ATSB said so. I guess I am just trying to extract all the information I can about the basis of your report limitations if you report perceptions of people who may have contributed to the report, because that informs us where we perhaps need to look elsewhere.

The mitigation that was put in place in terms of CASA's compromise, as they called it, to say that as long as the hangar was visible during the first part of a takeoff that was acceptable, clearly does not apply to somebody who is on approach to land and has a bolt landing perhaps due to a heavy rain shower such that the pilot is low-level. If you actually look at the IFR flyover clearance requirements, we are talking very flat, clear requirements in that scenario and the hangar is clearly in the space where that is going to become an issue. From the ATSB's perspective, did you consider that as part of your report?

Mr Dolan: No, we did not, Senator. As I say, the information available to us at the time was focused on departure not on approach. There is nothing in our report that would cast light on that issue you have raised.

Senator FAWCETT: My last question before the chair moves me on is talking around departures. I notice on page 3 of your report, where you talk about the turn initiation area, you describe in the PANS-OPS terms things like the obstacle identification surface and 150 metres which is normally the inner edge running along. Under the old MOS 139 it was table 7-1 and under the new one it is table 10-1. Table 10-2 applies to take-offs whereas table 10-1 applies to landings. The figure of 150 is relevant for approach runway considerations for a code 3 runway. For a code 3 runway for departures it is actually 180 metres. Would you care to comment on that discrepancy, given that, as you said, your investigation focused on departures as opposed to arrivals?

Mr Dolan: On the basis of what I have in front of me, I do not think I am in a position to comment.

Senator FAWCETT: Please take that on notice and whether whoever worked on that area of the report could explain the different numbers between the various versions of MOS. He could explain whichever one he wishes to use.

Mr Dolan: I would be very happy to take that on notice. There are two things to come back to this committee based on the view we come to on that consideration. It is always open to us, if additional information comes to light, to reopen one of our investigations if that is necessary. I am not undertaking to do that, but I am certainly undertaking to consider it if necessary.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.
Hmm..and with Beaker's former association with the Department's Airports Division in the drawing up of secondary airport lease agreements - in particular Hoxton Park - you begin to see that there is definitely a lot to like about the BRB hypothesis...

And therefore much..much MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 11th Dec 2014 at 07:19.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 08:49
  #2525 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,450
Aww c'mon Sarcie,

looks like corruption, sounds like corruption, smells like corruption????

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...etc, etc.

Corruption happens when public infrastructure is offered for sale, where the actual value far exceeds the intrinsic value as a public asset.

I believe the biggest disaster for aviation in Australia, and by aviation I mean all aviation, RPT and GA was the supposed "privatization of Australia's airports. Nothing really changed hands, no transfer of Title, no ownership. The airports were already owned, by the public.

All that happened was a massive debt, against what was already owned, was artificially created, attracting massive interest payments that result in the probability that the operators of these ex public assets could never make a profit. The Government in essence used the airports to borrow money off books.

Last edited by thorn bird; 11th Dec 2014 at 20:34.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 21:04
  #2526 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
s379 and all that.

Brother Sarcs is quite correct, the airports imbroglio was started by the Bill Heffernan in estimates and had it nor been for the efforts of one Fawcett Esq. the smoke and mirrors show may just have evaded the wily 'Heff', not for wont of trying, for he could smell something, but for lack of a 'technical' expertise, he was unaware of needing. The secondary airport skeleton needs flesh on it's bones, if we are to understand what, precisely it is. Start by downloading - s379- from the parliament website. It's free and an easy down load, takes about 20 seconds. In the index find 'Turn 110'; this opens at P127 and runs into 128. If you start @:-

Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, a number of individuals and aviation associations have criticised—in fact, some have condemned in quite strong words—both the minister and the department for their handling of the issues around commercial development on Bankstown and Archerfield airports. I would like to know if you would make an opening statement about how you see the department's role in interacting with airport operators, the minister and CASA in terms of that process.
and finish @:

Senator FAWCETT: If I can continue, all I am doing is highlighting an example. We have had the secretary tell us that everything is rosy. I have three or four examples where quite clearly the process of checking, verification and independent audit of the advice, whether it is given by the airport operator, by a consultant or by CASA in some cases has not been taken up and acted on appropriately by the department. That is the issue at hand, so all that detail was merely an example where due diligence has not been applied to a process and the end result is operational restrictions on people at the airport, which flies directly in the face of the stated intention of providing paths for growth for the airport.
It gives you an inkling of 'what's afoot'. I got very curious about just who was managing Archerfield airport, slipping in the 'restrictions' and issuing the no-go Notams etc; and wondered if there was some covert 'assistance' being provided from that office to make full use of the airfield 'difficult'. To my great surprise, the manager at the time finished up carrying McComics handbag and forgetting to put fuel in the Comcar – who'da thunk it...Well, fancy that, as Mama would say.

The following couple of pages are interesting, if you want to join the public service. The grasshopper technique in all it's hoary glory. ATSB for this, CASA for that, ASA for the other; no one responsible for anything – a merry-go-round which ejects the dizzy rider into the hall of smoke and mirrors. Where facts, like those who run the departments are firmly tied to the apron strings of the Murky Machiavellian.

P 130 - Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?
It's also interesting to note the difference in the 'tone' the Chair takes during this passage of play and the tone taken during more recent events. Between Fawcett and Xenophon they have forged a truly bi-partisan committee, by simply being able to explain to the committee exactly what they are hearing. Once converted, the committee joined forces and have become a force that Mrdak cannot easily deny. No doubt the mandarins club will circle the wagons and protect their own, they'd better get a wriggle on though, their boy is drowning in a sea of facts, which just keeps getting deeper.

Skip through to page 136 and read through to 142: even in 2011 the committee was unimpressed with both Russell and ASA services. Looking back at the last little go-around ASA had at estimates, I'd say the three intervening years of research and examination have infuriated this committee, as well it should.

I'm still not certain I can completely accept that a department of the government would, with malice and aforethought, deliberately set out to cripple an industry simply to assist property development on our secondary airports. But I would like to be on the jury hearing the case; betchya the 'facts' and evidence would make a fine story, it's all just a bit too 'coincidental' for fiction; which has to make sense, if it is to be believed by the reader. Good fiction is developed from research of facts.

Aye well, time will tell and we sure seem to have a lot that to kill, waiting for something, anything concrete to happen. Three years since this Hansard was released and the same issues, names and places just keep appearing, the same lines of waffle, obfuscation, smoke and mirrors, the same old nothing changed. It's clear where the problem lays; equally clear is the way to fix it; all it takes is someone with the balls to shift the blockage at the junction where three paths meet and merge into one. Perhaps then, the patience of 'man at the back of the room' will be rewarded; next year ?, maybe...

Toot toot.

Last edited by Kharon; 11th Dec 2014 at 21:27. Reason: One of the few remaining command prerogatives, that's why.
Kharon is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2014, 01:46
  #2527 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 48
Posts: 177
I'm still not certain I can completely accept that a department of the government would, with malice and aforethought, deliberately set out to cripple an industry simply to assist property development on our secondary airports. But I would like to be on the jury hearing the case
It might be interesting to see who is related to who, or who has family and friends or who are linked to companies who may stand to gain lots of money from such developments, or who may be setting themselves up for future employment in a construction enterprise of sorts??
Soteria is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2014, 05:43
  #2528 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
BRB hypothesis & the many layers of the Mandarin Onion.

Good catch UITA but I would suggest that Thommo maybe the Director of International Standards in name only and is merely another Murky glove muppet... What no longer surprises me is the sheer audacity; of a) M&M placing a person with a marine background as the chief international conduit to ICAO... and; b) M&Ms current cunning scheme to gain control of ICAO - by nominating McComic to the ICAO top job (fully supported by Albo)..

While on the subject of ICAO - & M&Ms current report card on all things aviation - there was several mentions by Senator Fawcett on the Willyleaks ICAO/FAA audit in the s379 Hansard. The one that caught my eye was the following to McComic where you'll see that Murky again chimes in..:
Senator FAWCETT: Mr McCormick, you are obviously aware of WikiLeaks and their discussion around the FAA and ICAO audit that took place recently. Some of the comments that came out of that—undertrained, underfunded, incapable of understanding the obligations to airline safety oversight—were fairly damning. I have two questions that come out of that. Firstly, has CASA been underfunded in your opinion?

Mr Mrdak: I will jump in early to put on the record that the Australian government has a clear position of not commenting in relation to WikiLeaks matters and matters pertaining to cables. I ran through this a little earlier, Senator, in relation to a question that was asked about a maritime issue. We do not comment on what representatives of other governments may wish to comment on, and certainly not in relation to the material that has been published on WikiLeaks. Having said that—

Senator FAWCETT: That is fine. Can I rephrase the question.

Mr Mrdak: Perhaps if you rephrase it outside that issue.

Senator FAWCETT: Do CASA believe that they have had adequate resources to perform the functions that they know they are supposed to perform to the level that they wish to perform them?

Mr McCormick: At this stage, yes.

Senator FAWCETT: Without commenting on a foreign government's proposal, what it showed to a certain extent was that, with an audit from an independent body, things were highlighted. Some of the comments that have come out from the government and CASA have shown that things have been addressed, so clearly some areas were identified. Is there an internal process of auditing or is there an external auditing body that looks at CASA's operations on a regular basis, rather than having to rely on an overseas body to come through and highlight issues?

Mr McCormick: If I can take the last part of that first, I took over in March 2009 and you will find in Hansard that I stated in, I think, May 2009 that the issues I saw in CASA revolved around four areas. They were: refocusing on our core activity, which is the regulation of aviation safety; increasing the governance of the organisation, which of course includes audit; making sure our staff are properly trained and deployed; and, lastly, completing the regulatory reform program in the most expeditious manner. Those comments and those plans that we put in place predate the FAA audit visit to Australia. Without commenting on the source of some of that information, we work very closely with the FAA. Of course the FAA, like everyone, is entitled to their own opinion, and in some of these areas we would differ...
From that we get the impression that the Angry Man barely holds his contempt in check for the ICAO/FAA audit process . However he does claim ownership of the damning FAA audit report and suggests that he is well on the way to addressing these problematic FAA findings.

The trouble here for Murky is he is party to a State ICAO tripartite agreement and has the ultimate responsibility for reporting to ICAO/FAA on the progress of the response to the 2008 audit findings. And for the average person at the back of the room it would appear that not much has changed since...

There is also the small matter that while under M&Ms control the list of notified differences to ICAO has not reduced one iota, in fact it has grown by more than 10 pages - H18/14 Making Australia by far and away the leader of the pack in non-compliance to ICAO SARPs - no one comes close...

Drift over and back to the BRB hypothesis where "K" was referring to s379... For those interested may I suggest it is also worth referring to the QONs/AQONs for 2011 Estimates, especially Aviation & Airports see here .

Next we will fast forward some 2 years to the Additional Estimates where again Senator Fawcett takes up the cause on behalf of Secondary Airport users/operators, in particular Jandakot & Bankstown - go to Aviation & Airports bookmark here.

Hmm...some light reading in that lot...

Sarcs is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2014, 20:35
  #2529 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax.

Sots –"It might be interesting to see who is related to who, or who has family and friends or who are linked to companies who may stand to gain lots of money. etc"
Interesting point, that of 'family and friends' being given a helping hand into trough paradise. I thought, hmm probably another investigative job for the AFP – if ever the question was raised by the SC. Then I remembered an almost forgotten brief conversation with a bloke I hardly know, he's 'connected' though; through other interests. Bumped him at a coffee shop, you know; "G'day" – "G'day" type of chat while waiting about, now he mentioned, in passing, a Heff initiative, ICAC and airports, as an aside almost, to the main topic which was the possibility of asbestos contamination of the land filled flood plain at Bankstown. As I don't know the bloke very well, I just let it slide past. But now I wonder – given the recent AFP keen interest in matters aeronautical, if the blow torch is at least lit; if not yet applied, in earnest. One for the watchers, methinks.

Sarcs –"For those interested may I suggest it is also worth referring to the QONs/AQONs for 2011 Estimates, especially Aviation & Airports. etc"
The battle of the QoN's makes a fascinating tale. Have you noticed the changes in weaponry. The SC have, for many years relied on the traditional 'blunt instrument' and a wild swing. The opposition on carefully 'work shopped' answers. Over the last couple of years the QoN have morphed into a surgical tool, used with clinical precision to cut through to the chase. The game of eventually providing fluffy, work-shopped, delayed, non answers to awkward questions is being slowly, but inevitably terminated. Time lines are being enforced, the answers being weighed against the certain knowledge the Senators have, that used to frame the original questions. A lawyer and aviation specialist writing those questions. You'll also notice, (the Staib debacle being classic demonstration), that now the SC want a statement 'for the record'. Staib was, from memory, asked several times 'for the record'; gods help her if it's ever proven that a fairy story was deliberately fractured, under oath and told to the SC.

Despite the negligible support from the minuscule and the passive resistance of the various 'organisations' the SC seem to be beating the MM puppets and Word Weasels at their own, 'confused' game. It's all a bit like watching a chess match; if you have no interest then it's boring and pointless, but the devotees can spot the finesse, appreciate the subtleties and applaud the moves which score the points. Bravo the Senate Committee, sappers undermining the mighty edifice which houses the great myth; that of aviation safety and the bloated trough dwellers it nurtures. Lay on, MacDuff.

Toot toot......
Kharon is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2014, 22:30
  #2530 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
BRB hypothesis - poohtube interlude.

Kharon - ...a Heff initiative, ICAC and airports, as an aside almost, to the main topic which was the possibility of asbestos contamination of the land filled flood plain at Bankstown. As I don't know the bloke very well, I just let it slide past. But now I wonder – given the recent AFP keen interest in matters aeronautical, if the blow torch is at least lit; if not yet applied, in earnest.
Hmm...very interesting... Kind of puts the link I provided (above) to the Additional Estimates of 2013 (from page 64) into the frame...

Or for those that are less enamoured with the written record of Hansard...

With that and the Kharon quote all ties in quite nicely with this from Heff...

As an aside with the mention of ICAC I found the following SMH article quite topical...: National ICAC needed to probe federal politicians, says NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption counsel Geoffrey Watson, SC,

Wonder if they shouldn't extend that to include Federal Mandarins...

Sarcs is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2014, 19:52
  #2531 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Shave or a haircut Sir?

Two sidebars of interest there Sarcs – the Heffernan throw away line – about 'sleepers' indicates that the committee has just about got the story, but are (were) shy in the evidence department.

Then, one of the BRB is prepared to swear on a Stat Dec that there were several at a Bankstown meeting where all were informed that ripping out the 18/36 runway was an essential part of the purchase deal. Seems the aerodrome could not be sold off, not at any price while that runway remained. Anyone else heard a similar story??.

One final, unsubstantiated 'rumour': that on field rents were 'jacked' up to well above the rates for surrounding off field sites, to make 'leases' undesirable. This in an effort to present a solid case for demolishing the whole place and bringing in the 'developers'. Before a major bank copped a really short, embarrassing haircut. Seems it may yet be a really close shave.

It's quite a tale ain't it, if it's all true. I'm still not convinced, but it all makes for interesting reading. Depends how you read it of course, but, the next couple of weeks could be interesting as the realisation dawns that someone, somewhere is going to be short of a few pennies in the tin when the piper must be paid. I wonder, who'll be left – Holding the Baby.

Toot toot.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2014, 22:58
  #2532 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sportsfans – Impending Bollocks Alert.

Passing strange indeed that this vomitus – 'article' should appear right now.
Dolan: - "I was reminded of the term ‘global village’ this week, when I attended the ATSB’s course in human factors."....

I was immediately reminded of the words used by the Senate inquiry to define the ATSB actions in the report on the Pel Air ditching – words such as deceit, collusion, corruption, obfuscation; and, the actions taken to decimate and discredit the honest, honourable Human Factors elements reported honestly, as provided by those who could probably re-write the 20 year old course Dolan attended, for a photo opportunity. Probably the one and only 'safety' course the untenable Dolan has ever attended.

I find it even stranger that Dolan after obliquely bagging Sir Tim; chooses to use the very 'discreet', selectively read Bloomberg publication to promote the notion that perhaps, he, Dolan has decided to increase the search area as suggested by simulator trials, probably funded by Sir Tim. The problems those relying on 'media' releases face to follow the search for MH 370 are those of credibility and probity. Had anyone else, such as Angus Houston made the statements – HERE – the public could be forgiven for thinking 'well done' and wishing the searchers well. But when statements, such as these are dribbled into the Bloomberg ear, from the Bea-Cur lips, the immediate IOS response is; "He's setting up for the exit strategy". Bets will be taken on what day in May Bea-Cur will roll off the top, as and when directed. "Oh, It's all too hard and we have not got enough data to justify endlessly continuing to widen the search area; anyway, we don't believe that any information of 'safety' value will be found; which precludes finding the 'black-box'.

So, we the IOS, are left to wonder, has the commissioner (for he do seem to like personal, intimate chats with journalists, don't he?) taken his very own personal views to Bloomberg, rather than publishing them through official media channels or, even on his normal one man show "Blog"; or even through 'ATSB Info', which he seems to neglect, or use, as best suits his own, whimsical, devious agenda for personal survival?. Has he now self promoted himself to being the 'expert' on the search patterns?

Aye, 'tis all passing strange; indeed. Bollocks sticker impending.

Toot toot...
Kharon is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2014, 21:37
  #2533 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Dolan on MH370 - "Ad libitum"??

Aye, 'tis all passing strange; indeed. Bollocks sticker impending.
Indeed Kharon still trying to track whether the Beaker quotes from Bloomberg have been made official theory or summation from the JACC webpage - Operational Search Update. From this you can see the last official update was on 10 December 2014 (note the Bloomberg article mentions telephone interviewed Bea-cur the day before 12/12) and there has been no official MR given since 17 November 2014....

One of the MSM international outlets that keeps their finger on the pulse -with the official updates from the JACC - is the Daily Mail here is an article link which recognises the 10 December update: First images of the search for MH370 are released

And this was the article the Daily Mail put out yesterday:
Main search for MH370 could end in May as hunt fails to show any sign of missing plane
  • Investigators say the search for MH370 may finish in May
  • Decisions regarding the search will be made in collaboration between Malaysia, China and Australia
  • Last week, family members of the 239 passengers on-board provided DNa samples to assist in identifying any bodies that may be found
  • Lead search agency released an images showing what they have recorded as they scour the Indian Ocean floor
  • The image was captured by the GO Phoenix vessel, which returned the search area on Tuesday to continue underwater operations
  • More than 9,000 square kilometres of ocean floor has been searched to date with no sign of the missing plane
Neither of which acknowledges the Bea-cur contribution as he relayed to Bloomberg but the Daily Mail in the 2nd article does get an official statement from the JACC that all going well the designated search area could be completed by May 2015:
Investigators searching for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 say they could finish scouring the priority zone by May, more than a year after it vanished, if there are no delays with vessels, equipment and weather.
Which does give a higher than normal probability of the Kharon hypothesis coming into play...:
"He's setting up for the exit strategy". Bets will be taken on what day in May Bea-Cur will roll off the top, as and when directed. "Oh, It's all too hard and we have not got enough data to justify endlessly continuing to widen the search area; anyway, we don't believe that any information of 'safety' value will be found; which precludes finding the 'black-box'.
Either way it does leave the question of whether Bea-cur is on-script or off script (official/unofficial) open-ended...

Given the current black cloud that he is under - with the PelAir cover-up to be reviewed by the ATsB - I do wonder why the powers to be have not put a muzzle on Bea-cur until such time as it is all sorted or again obfuscated...

Here is what Bea-cur had to say less than a month ago in that vomitus lunch time interview to the SMH- The world's biggest mystery is in Martin Dolan's sights:
He also oversaw the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air ambulance plane off Norfolk Island in 2009. Amazingly, all six people on board survived the crash.

A senate committee slammed the bureau's handling of the inquiry, criticising its report for focusing on the pilot's actions and lacking analysis or details of factors that assist the wider industry.

Dolan says the government accepted the bureau's advice that no safety purpose would be served by reopening the investigation as was urged by the committee.

At the bureau's request, he adds, Canadian transport safety regulators are currently conducting a peer-review of the the body's policies and how they were implemented in several investigations, including Pel-Air.

"We learnt that there are different views of our work and how we do it and that aviation safety is an area where people have different views and they don't always agree with you," Dolan says.
Isn't it amazing how certain statements can sometimes come back to haunt...

But to be fair Bea-cur wasn't to know that the Miniscule would also apparently go "off-script" and pronounce in Parliament less than 2 weeks later...

"...I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation of the ditching of the Pel-Air aircraft off Norfolk Island in 2009. As a consequence I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to re-opening the investigation..."

Followed by...

"...On a related point, I have just announced that I will shortly be appointing a new commissioner for the ATSB with a specific background in aviation. This will fulfil an undertaking made by the coalition prior to the election and also one of the recommendations of the report. I have asked that a fresh review of the Pel-Air accident take into account the findings of the ATSB report..." (Miniscule speech)

Yes indeed "K" 'tis all 'passing strange'...

One thing is for sure Bea-cur must go and that will be yet another "F" mark for the 800k+ Chief Mandarin in the "Aviation" section of his 2014 report card!


Addendum - Anderson?? - nails it!
"A very dark day in ATSB history was when that farcical report was released." — Anderson

ATSB credibility in the aviation sector (and undoubtedly the others as well) - Gone!.

Martin Dolan must now be removed from his post as head of the ATSB - the report and the circumstances surrounding it left no doubt the ATSB was happy to have CASA dictate the content of reports and direct inquiries.
The words 'collusion' and 'deceit' come to mind.

ATSB independence, impartiality and integrity - None!

Now that McCormack has finally departed, its time the ATSB (and the transport sector generally) saw the back of Dolan. He actually seems like quite an affable fellow, but his reputation has been shattered and the Pel-Air fiasco.

It's time to go Mr Dolan.

Only then can the ATSB start to rebuild its fractured reputation and put the whole sorry affair to rest

Last edited by Sarcs; 14th Dec 2014 at 22:40.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2014, 03:01
  #2534 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,420
Betting starts for a new head for the ATSB. My guess is another doddering, superannuated, complaisant Canberra based RAAF creep like Skidmore.

It will be just like old times in the squadron shower room.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2014, 08:13
  #2535 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 494
I'm a cynic, the re - inquiry into the PelAir investigation will probably find minor issues to be resolved. remember the old axiom " don't hold an inquiry uness you know the answer."
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2014, 09:01
  #2536 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
To explode or quietly implode; that Sirrah, is the question.

Sarcs - "But to be fair Bea-cur wasn't to know that the Miniscule would also apparently go "off-script" and pronounce in Parliament less than 2 weeks later."..etc..
It just beats me; the AFP should be all over Pel-Air and Truss should be putting more than a polite request for "serious consideration" as distance between himself and Be-a-Cur; a good country mile and three bodies aught to do the trick. Particularly now as the 'Crikey Insider' and the 'Daily Mail' have got wind that there is great potential for yet another ducked up-cover up. The MH 370 situation is ugly and it can, realistically only end in tears: unless of course, there is a Christmas miracle and they actually find the wretched thing. (Send it back ET, the games up).

Allowing the publicly discredited, disingenuous Bea-Cur anywhere near the investigation is simply a red-rag to the conspiracy bull. Abbott needs his bumps felt; and, relying on the Murky Machiavellian crew for 'unbiased' guidance is just asking for trouble, particularly with regard to airports. Even the infamous Chem-Miln-ical Trails (plays for the Tassie Haridans) has been offered a free kick; as if the government had not got enough on it's plate. But no, Bea-Cur, unleashed, is free to lunch with panting, gushing, halfwit, neophyte wanabee journalists and even free to gossip with the likes of Bloomfield; it's nearly as disgusting as Wodger Wabbit popping up at the RAeS, as guest speaker FCS. Houston must be spitting chips. The PR guru's probably have some proper name for 'what it is' but for mine, it's plain old, ordinary, everyday pony-pooh. Pel-Air clearly discredited both, yet they attempt to crudely and clumsily resurrect reputations which were well tarnished, even before the Pel-Air 'aberration'. It's GMD.

Now I do realise that for the AFP it's a big ask; and, it's probably very difficult to even separate potential 'State' from 'Commonwealth' crimes; even tougher again, considering they must start from scratch to get a firm grip on what these monkeys have been up to. But if they would be guided by the Senators and more importantly, by the Senators 'aides' (who really are in a class of their own....) it would all, with a little patience, research and time prove to be a worthwhile effort. Perhaps no charges could ever be laid; but it would send a message, in clear; as in crystal.

I wonder, did the Murky Machiavellian crew have some inkling that the Minuscule was going to make the Pel-Air re-match 'happen'; 'cos if they did; it's Wabbit pie and Bea-Cur pudding for Christmas lunch, for as Shirley would say; they have both just been cut loose from the protected species club. Jolly good, say's I...

Toot toot.

Last edited by Kharon; 15th Dec 2014 at 19:06.
Kharon is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2014, 13:49
  #2537 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Lightbulb go Sunnie

For a moment there I was beginning to give some credence to your posts, but thank goodness you saved me from that complete misapprehension of your knowledge base with:

...another doddering, superannuated, complaisant Canberra based RAAF creep like Skidmore...
Serves me right really, far too trusting of pseudonyms...

Stay Alive,
4dogs is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 03:44
  #2538 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,404
Royal Commission or Judicial Inqiry...

The only way to have CAsA raked over the coals...and let all the victims and industry particpants say it like it really is, is to have one of the above.

Yes, I know they cost mega dollars, but CAsA has splurged mega billions over the years and for what national safety benefits.?
Extremely poor value for money.
So many of their money wasting brain snaps have withered on the vine with no outcome.
And most of the stuff that does get thru is causing GA to wither on the vine.

Read Tezza's last spruik in the monthly enews?. Bucket required.

Even the AFP mentioned a Royal Commission because there was so much bad stuff being done by its the only way to let it all hang out.

Keep banging the drum and support Sen X and crew.

Boom! boom! What do we want? . Boom boom Royal Commission now!
aroa is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 05:17
  #2539 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,420
4Dogs, yes:

another doddering, superannuated, complaisant Canberra based RAAF creep like Skidmore...
As you may know, the Russell offices are known as "The Gray Sponge" and many a fine and active officer has gone in and come out Two years later completely lobotomised - zombie like with an unrecognisable personality as a result of consorting with the devils that reside there.

I don't believe that it is possible these days to arrive at the rank of Air Vice Marshal without having to play politics at the Russell Offices and thus get the lobotomy or the bite on the neck, whatever. The days of "action man" soldiers holding high rank are long gone, I think one General was lost in Afghanistan and none in Iraq, leading from the front is not in vogue any more. From what I’ve heard considerable numbers gain promotion by saying "yes" to al sorts of things. Conversely, no one gets promoted for saying "no".

So I'm sorry to say I think the chances of Skidmore being a new broom in CASA are zero. At best he may be the smiling avuncular face, good to have a drink with, an all round nice guy.. And after all is said and done, the senior management of CASA will still be there.

Mrdak appointed the Board and Skidmore. Do you think they will ever criticise each other?

As for ATSB, I wonder if Mrdak is brazen enough to choose another RAAF clone who knows their way around Canberra? My guess is yes. Then we will have a mutual admiration society, they can form a magic circle and engage in all sorts of RAAF rituals.

Seriously, I don't give much credit to todays general officers at all.

To put it another way, if reform is required, and it is, we need some highly skilled, intelligent, ethical and ruthless attack dogs running CASA, not some friendly Golden Retriever. An acquaintance of mine terms such good people "hard hearted empaths".
Sunfish is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 05:36
  #2540 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
All General Officer and Senior Officer Ranks are political appointments. ie. Anyone above Field Grade Rank.

Having said that, the new DAS is on a hiding to nowhere, which ever way the plebs' take him. Damn him now, or later, he's bound to cop it. I have noted of late he is taking calls, is communicative and seems an obliging cove. To my way of thinking, it would be better to see how he goes in the early stages and judge him on performance than to pre-empt any long and expected standards associated with incoming people of this caliber.

I'm guessing any leeway given shouldn't exceed by Easter at least. I'd be keeping a keen eye on his "handlers" however. Lets hope he represents an illumination at the end of the tunnel.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 16th Dec 2014 at 07:54. Reason: Felt obliged.
Frank Arouet 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.