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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 16th Dec 2014, 08:32
  #2541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 356
Back o PelAir, Chief Pilots, and musical chairs

Given the special audit clearly established the standards manager had the responsibly to "oversee the training", one further presumes this delegation was with the written approval of CASA.

So when CASA approved the new chief pilot, they must have also approved (in writing) the delegation of training and checking duties to the outgoing chief pilot (i.e. the new standards manager).

The special audit doesn't explicitly state that CASA had approved this delegation of training and checking at the time. However they surely must have given such approval, and this would be kept on file

I'm still intrigued by all of the above.

So CASA allegedly wanted to see a change of chief pilot at PelAir. This change was duly effected. Then either:
1. CASA did approve the delegation of westward international check & training to the outgoing chief pilot. Which is unfortunate for CASA given the scathing criticism heaped on this individual shortly after in the 2009 special audit
or
2. CASA did not approve this delegation, and CASA was presumably surprised to discover these duties had been so delegated during the 2009 special audit.

So which one was it? Mr Skidmore? Senators?
slats11 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 09:05
  #2542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Aviation Mandarin, JORN & the sleepy echidna.

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...

...From what I’ve heard considerable numbers gain promotion by saying "yes" to all sorts of things. Conversely, no one gets promoted for saying "no".
All General Officer and Senior Officer Ranks are political appointments. ie. Anyone above Field Grade Rank.
Sunny & Frank two enlightening posts...

Not that I want to weigh into the pros & cons on (AVM ret) Skidmore but the following from this month's Fort Fumble missive....does not imbue one with a whole lot of confidence...:
From Director of Aviation Safety designee Mark Skidmore

While I have not yet stepped into the role of Director of Aviation Safety, I just wanted to take this opportunity to start the important job of communicating with everyone. Communication and consultation are high priorities for me and I have already begun to meet people and organisations from the aviation community. You may notice that I am deliberately describing the aviation sector as a community rather than an industry. This may be a subtle difference but it recognises there is more to aviation than just the commercial operations which are embraced by the term ‘industry’. As an active general aviation pilot I appreciate the commitment to aviation of the many people who are not in any way earning revenue from flying. In fact, as any private aircraft owner knows, being a part of aviation can cost quite a bit of money. We stay involved because we love aviation and love flying. It is that commitment to aviation that drove me to seek the position of Director of Aviation Safety and it will guide my thinking during my five year term. When I take the reins on 1 January 2015 I will keep listening to everyone who is part of the aviation community, as well as people in the broader Australian community who have an interest in aviation safety. I look forward to meeting and hearing from as many people as possible in the months and years ahead.

Have a safe and merry Christmas

Mark Skidmore
Couple that with the Hoodoo Voodoo spellbinding (bollocks..) oratory to the AAA conference you begin to get the picture that the Mrdak (BRB hypothesis) grand plan is alive and well.

However there are indications in the Doc's speech of a concerted effort to circle the wagons around M&M's weakest link i.e. Airport Lease agreements:
Safeguarding of airports-Protection of airspace


Let me say a word or two about airspace protection. CASA is alive to the concerns that have been expressed with increasing frequency about the-
  • encroachment of tall residential and commercial buildings in the vicinity of airports;
  • extent to which such encroachments compromise the safety of air operations at those airports; and
  • suggestion that CASA should play a more determinative role in the approval processes for potentially encroaching construction projects.
While community vigilance plays an important part in any democratic society, CASA believes the existing regime, whereby the protection of airspace is governed within a framework agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, is adequate and appropriate.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is responsible for managing the protection of airspace around Leased Federal Airports (LFAs), and it does so informed by advice provided by CASA and Airservices Australia. CASA strives to provide responsive and timely advice to the Department on all applications involving infringement of prescribed airspace around federal airports, and we remain confident that the Department properly takes that advice in to account in forming its views.

At non-Federal airports, CASA will continue to provide advice to proponents and land use planning authorities in relation to proposals involving the infringement of airspace. Pursuant to guidelines of the National Airport Safeguarding Advisory Framework, we believe planning authorities should act in the light of CASA’s advice. In the end, however, we recognise that our authority is limited to the provision of such advice. Matters related to land use planning are best dealt with by elected policy makers and other planning authorities, and it would be inappropriate for the aviation safety regulator to have decision-making powers in connection with matters calling for a sometimes delicate balance to be struck between the safety and efficiency of airport operations and other broader policy-based considerations.
Yep the Doc conveniently sidesteps that one - FF all care but no responsibility when it comes to Airports... However it still leaves M&M firmly in the gun sights...

On the apparent fact that AVM's are politically appointed (in our case M&M appointed):
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.
If that be the case Sunny then the next ATsB CC will come from this list (minus the deceased) - List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals

One of the names on that list who would be a potential candidate would be this guy - Warren Ludwig*1960—
Commander Integrated Area Defence System, Malaysia (2010–14).

If so there would yet again be another fascinating connection to MH370, for it seems that the RAAF has been dancing the tango with Malaysia under the Five Power Defence Arrangements for 43 years and the IADS has always been under the command of a RAAF AVM.

Reference from page 84 - The Five Power Defence Arrangements:The Quiet Achiever:

The Commander of IADS has always been an Australian Air Vice Marshal
assisted by a deputy who rotates between Malaysia and Singapore.
Reference from the Strategist article - FPDA—not fade away:
Unlike the echidna, the FPDA has at least adjusted its gait to move with the times, re-badging IADS from integrated air defence to area defence as far back as 2001. Exercise and interoperability themes have since been broadened from conventional defence to HADR and maritime security. FPDA was not publicly invoked during the search for MH 370, but the disaster has focused an operational spotlight on the need for integrated air surveillance and SAR coordination across Southeast Asia and beyond. The apparent failure to track the airliner as it passed north of Butterworth was not IADS’ finest hour. But the continuing multinational search operation has unquestionably benefited from the institutionalised trust built up between Malaysia and its fellow FPDA members.
This apparent anomaly - although totally missed by most Oz MSM - was not missed by the international MSM nor the TBA.

Example from IBT - MH370: Australia Seems Conspiring to Hide Something, Random Letter Sparks Questions on Au’s Security Radar :
...With this, he explained that JORN can search most of the way to India.
"Given this, the only way for the radar not to have detected something like MH370 is for it to be switched off at the time, which raises its own questions."

The most interesting detail the Mr La Franchi pointed out is that Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom jointly operate the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) integrated air defence centre based in Malaysia.

He said that Australia had even funded the modernisation of the centre back in 1990. The modernisation entailed for the centre to be able to "recognised air picture" of all of Southeast Asian airspace using feeds from both civil and military radars.

"That centre has a live feed into the Australian Air Defence Ground Environment (ADGE) which underwent extensive modernisation across the 2000s. The FPDA integrated air defence data is fused with data from JORN in the ADGE, with this data available in real time at centres in Adelaide, Canberra and Newcastle," he explained.

With this information at hand, Mr La Franchi could not understand why MH370 was never detected by Australian system.
So could it be AVM Ludwig will soon be retired AVM Ludwig?? Hmm...make a perfect fit for replacing Bea-Cur and would certainly slot in quite nicely with the M&M master plan team (MMMPT) - especially when it comes to the inevitable (unless miraculously found) duck-up of the cover-up of MH370...

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 11:52
  #2543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,701
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??.
Folks,
I can personally vouch for this as a fact, I was at the meeting, called by BAL. The speaker who let the cat out of the bag was the then GM of the airport company.

The words were clear, several members of the audience questioned the speaker, to make certain that they were "hearing right". They were!!

Of course, this means that the "consultation" (which seems to have largely been with Airservices and CASA, not aviation businesses on the airport) was, in my opinion, a sham.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I love the "Department's" advice to the RRAT Committee, that for a student pilot, Goulburn, Mittagong and Warnervale are suitable alternates for a student pilot -- who has done no navigation training --- even if the average C-152 has the fuel endurance, and that is presuming that the weather that creates the excessive X-wind at YSBK is not also precluding VFR in and out of the Sydney basin.

In my opinion, this is as silly as the original advice, which was that a pilot could just declare an emergency and divert to Kingsford-Smith.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 19:30
  #2544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Deck the boughs with frogs and dollies..

Tim Tam quality research Sarcs, cracking good job... Bravo that man...

It's all starting to get a little untidy on board the Murky Machiavellian flag ship, it's beginning to look more like a 'boat people' transport, with dirty washing draped over the rigging, rust and those embarrassing 'brown' steaks along the hull, rather than a ship of state. His glove puppets and puppettes have not performed well, not at all.

McComic shuffled off to Canada without a –fare-thee-well; no one (except Terry) even mentioned his passing. The Senate just let him go and the minuscule has put a fairly large, silent distance between his government and the outgoing. Why Mrdak and only Mrdak (Albo cheering from the sidelines) is supporting a bid for a plumb ICAO job remains a mystery. Not one single 'official' word on the ICAO issue has been uttered, despite public funding of the bid (oh it will be, in one form or another, be 'public') – I wonder why...

Bea-Cur remains in charge of the MH 370 debacle; I think we may safely call it that now. The "Australian' end is under suspicion. Mark you that's only because any time you want to invade, start at 1500 hours on any Friday you like; you'll have the whole weekend to finish the task, before the return to work 0930 Monday. We don't do weekends here in the land of the long weekend. That, of it's self is not a good look, but to send the crown prince of collusion in to manage 'the search', while under a dense cloud of suspicion and Senate condemnation is just nuts and asking for more trouble.

Then, there's the token 'female' trampling about, blindfold in the ASA china shop, goaded and tormented by the 'Slicks'. What a superlative performance; courage badges and faux wings the result of our AUD$600,000 investment, while the Slicks continue to steal the cream from the cash cow and boff the milk maids, at will.

No doubt about it, the Murky Machiavellian crew have head hunted the very best to manage matters aeronautical. Only two of the original set of three monkeys remain, but, thanks to providence, a full set remains on the mantle piece. Which only leaves the question of where will they be placed by the MM job search team?, when the stench becomes unbearable, unanswered. If they can all be placed within ICAO (never mind the expense) the clandestine take over will be complete, then it won't matter how many 'differences' we file; all will be well.

Aye - One man has much to answer for, although I doubt I'll hear the explanations; not in this lifetime anyway.

Toot ......toot..

Last edited by Kharon; 16th Dec 2014 at 19:38. Reason: Shaking off ticks.
Kharon is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 00:19
  #2545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
And – Steam ON (again)..

Dear Senators:

In a glib, quasi friendly, condescending 'email', which begins with the salutation "G'day Mr James" and ends with "All the best" (of luck one assumes), the slippery Snagsome of Pel-Air fame has informed Dom James that indeed, the ditching of his medevac aircraft off Norfolk is to be 're-examined'.

A new investigation team will review the original investigation and associated report in the light of any fresh evidence and other relevant points raised in this and separate reviews by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee and through the Deputy Prime Minister’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review. The main focus will be ensuring that the specific findings of the TSB review are taken fully into account before issuing a final report of the reopened investigation.
Does Snagsome imagine, for one minute that a simple 'review' will make it all better?; if he does, then he's barking.

Does the purblind, non technical administrator believe that it's only about the 'report' and that is the only 'aberration'?; if he does then clearly it's time for the men in white coats.

The Senate inquiry publicly exposed a picture of the top of a very ugly ice berg. It was not the 'investigation'; the likes of Watson, Hattley, Cook and the rest of troops did not do too bad a job. It was what was done with their work and the predetermined outcome which held everyone in a thrall of stunned disbelief. The CASA actions, in particular the actions of Chambers, White, Grima, Farquharson, McCormick, and ATSB Sangsome, Walsh and Dolan deserve much more attention than a simple cut and polish job; this is damage that will not simply 'buff out'.

The Snagsome olive leaf, much like the Canadian maple leaf will be used to cover the more sensitive areas, lest some blushing virgin happen to espy a forbidden part of the anatomy. Well the princess crowd had better toughen up; we want the full Monty – all of it in public, with music, lights and a camera. The actions of this crowd have wantonly denied the victims basic human rights and destroyed a mans career, though administrative persecution, a whispering campaign and inventing a set of impediments, which effectively prevent that man obtaining the ratings needed, to even apply for work, let alone expect to receive any.

IT's NOT THE REPORT WHICH IS THE PROBLEM – IT's THE PRE DETERMINED OUTCOME, THE COLLUSION AND BLATENT PERVERSION OF THE AVIATION SAFETY SYSTEMS WHICH HAS LANDED BOTH ATSB AND CASA IN THE MIRE. REVIEW THAT: you supercilious, harebrained Muppet.

No, no; not cranky, not yet; but getting there a bloody site faster than I normally would. I just can't believe 'these people' actually exist and are 'in charge' of aeronautical matters, but, alas, it seems they are and they do.

A fig leaf, is it really enough to cover all the sins; or just the bits that may embarrass?


Last edited by Kharon; 17th Dec 2014 at 00:29. Reason: Nah, leave it on yet a while Minnie, may need it again – real soon.
Kharon is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 05:17
  #2546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
ATsB to re-investigate PelAir - BOLLOCKS!

Kharon - IT's NOT THE REPORT WHICH IS THE PROBLEM – IT's THE PRE DETERMINED OUTCOME, THE COLLUSION AND BLATENT PERVERSION OF THE AVIATION SAFETY SYSTEMS WHICH HAS LANDED BOTH ATSB AND CASA IN THE MIRE. REVIEW THAT: you supercilious, harebrained Muppet.
Gold star Ferryman, don't hold back old son...

The single most underlying issue to come out of the Senate AAI inquiry (& somewhat from the TSBC peer review report) is that the ATsB is not - in any present shape or form - a fully independent State AAI as defined in ICAO Annex 13 or the TSI Act.

On the bureau webpage Overview of the ATSB under the heading - The ATSB and transport safety it states:
The independence of the ATSB is integral to the Bureau's safety role. Investigations that are independent of the parties involved in an accident, as well as transport regulators and government policy makers, are better positioned to avoid conflicts of interest and external interference. Being able to investigate without external direction provides an assurance that the findings will be determined and fully reported on without bias.
Much like the Malaysians should (but probably won't) now be seriously considering invoking the sub-clause included in Annex 13 para 5.1...

"..5.1 The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation
into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible
for the conduct of the investigation, but it may delegate
the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation
to another State by mutual arrangement and consent. In any
event the State of Occurrence shall use every means to
facilitate the investigation.."

...to delegate the whole investigation/search to a State AAI with absolutely zero skin in the contest; so to should the ATsB be handing the PelAir re-investigation to a similar ratified State AAI.

The sub-clause is primarily designed for less resourced ICAO signatory States to get assistance for the conduct of more complex investigations.

However the NTSB on the 28 May 2012 invoked the sub-clause when they saw the potential for conflict of interest issues with a fatal mid-air collision involving one of their own flying one aircraft and an FAA inspector flying the other. Who did they call?? Well the Canucks of course...

This story was relayed by Brad Vardy (who was incidentally the man tasked to oversee the ATsB peer review) in a blog-piece from the TSBC recorder -What are the chances?:
..An accident involving both the regulator and the safety board was certainly unprecedented anywhere, and investigating an occurrence in which one of their own employees was involved put the NTSB in a potential conflict of interest. So they turned to their northern neighbour for help.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, created in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation. Through the Convention on International Civil Aviation (also known as Chicago Convention), it sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity between the 191 member states. Annex 13 to this document stipulates how member states interact with respect to accident investigation, and it was under Section 5.1 of this annex that the investigation was delegated to Canada. -
Now although I am not questioning the integrity & professionalism of the designated IIC (mentioned in the Dom letter) and his team; I do however question both the credibility and integrity of the author (& the current executive team above him) as there is strong anecdotal evidence that this individual was heavily involved in collusion with the duck-up of the Pel-Air cover-up..

As Anderson said:
...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.
For that reason alone the para 5.1 sub-clause should be invoked and the re-investigation handed over to a grown-up State AAI with absolutely no hidden agendas or potential conflict of interest. Hmm...the NTSB would be a good candidate...

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 05:57
  #2547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,339
Oh my Gawd,

can't be serious!!! the smarmy supercilious clown!!

Don't you just love the sign off "All the best"???...... best of what??

My old pappy said after he'd sent me solo, "when you think you know everything about aviation, its time you find something else to do"

When I saw the first media interviews over the NGA event with the angry man McComic, I thought there is personified, what may old Dad was talking about, and railed against, and believe me it took considerable railing to get him to rail against anything much, but he could spot an egotistical buffoon from half a mile away.

Listening to McComic rail against the pilot of NGA, before an investigation had even started, let alone been concluded, spelt it out for me.

This will be a stitch up, and sure enough....

Lets consider some facts:

Domenic James breached no regulation.

Yet when that question was posed to ten different FOI's it was a fifty fifty split.

The old opinion of the FOI of the day syndrome.

Domenic James breached no company SOP's, in fact he followed them to the letter.

Domenic James planned the mission consistent with the information available to him AT THE TIME and in accordance with "COMPANY PRACTICE"

When it became apparent those conditions had changed Domenic James made a Command decision that his safest course of action was to proceed to his destination because his calculations told him he would arrive at his alternate with insufficient fuel.

CAsA's expert fuel calculations that he had enough fuel to divert, was completely discredited at the senate inquiry.

Yet McComic's ego would not allow him to be wrong so his acolyte Chambers was primed to decide what sanctions were to be applied to Domenic James to see that he never flew again.

Same as the Airtex stitch up, allegedly McComic screamed "I don't care what you do, or how you do it, just SHUT THEM DOWN"

So in the same manner as Airtex, Wodger defined a whole list of requirements that he was sure would ensure Domenic James would never fly again.

This from a man with no operational experience other than throwing a few bags about for the military.

He appointed himself the Prosecutor, Jury, Judge and finally executioner.

When James confounded the Wabbit by achieving the onerous requirements in short order, he was forced to return Domenic James Licence to him, but with a string attached.

Further draconian requirements were dreamt up, a whispering campaign begun, with threats of CAsA attention against anyone who provided Domenic James with employment.

Wherever he travelled in Australia the campaign followed on his heels.

YET HE BROKE NO Australian LAW.

But he broke McComics law, was tried by Chambers, was found guilty by Chambers, in Chambers court, and was sentenced to aviation purgatory by Chambers.

Domenic James is just one of many who have felt the attention of the Bankstown ex RAAF baggage handler.

I fear this sociopathic lunatic will will continue unimpeded on his rampage through Bankstown industry. Ably assisted by his black widow handmaiden he's pretty much wiped out whats left of Bankstown aviation businesses.

To what end? Just a warped misfit encouraged by an egotistical comic?

Or as is generally the case when things make little logical sense, follow the money!! .......Ah the murky manipulator....

Still a few dots to join, but we are getting closer and closer to the real picture of just what and why strange things happen at Bankstown Airport.
'
Most of us know CAsA is corrupt, just how corrupt remains to be seen.

Can anyone imagine that the "Reopened" inquiry will be anything else but a reiteration of Mc Comic edict that "the pilot dun it".

Cant be anything else after the Wabbit was let loose on Mr. James.

Money will do the talking, and after the rabbits effort, any honest report could make Mr. James a rather wealthy individual, not to mention the other people who were involved and so shabbily treated by the machiavellian manipulator and his co-conspirators.

Last edited by thorn bird; 17th Dec 2014 at 06:51.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 10:26
  #2548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Chambers is a wet lettuce leaf. All tough when amongst mates and behind protected gates. CASA should do themselves a favour and send the baggage handler up to the top end for a while to oversight us Chopper operators. I can assure you that after his first act of malfeasance and after we have dealt with him (pub rules my friends) Chambers would either run back to Sydney with his winky tucked between his legs or he would become 'permanently' lost somewhere in the Kimberley's!!!
Soteria is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 20:06
  #2549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Half Steam – Checked - On.

Sarcs - "I do however question both the credibility and integrity of the author (& the current executive team above him) as there is strong anecdotal evidence that this individual was heavily involved in collusion with the duck-up of the Pel-Air cover-up".
Amen.

The reasonable man, at the back of the room could be forgiven simultaneous howls of outrage and peels of laughter. It's that or heading down to the nearest bar and drinking the place dry. Allowing Dolan, Walsh or Sangston within a country mile of any 'investigation' into Pel-Air is like trapping a fox then throwing it back into the chook shed, to finish the job.

Sorry Sarcs – but Annexe 13 is an alien, malleable, moving feast to these doyens of 'professional' air safety administrators (date and issue irrelevant); rumour has it they use a soft white version of the Annexe, specially printed in long rolls in the executive 'rest rooms'.

It's a risible position to take, untenable and immoral. When (if) I recover some sang-froid, I'll do a twiddle based on a conversation between White, Sangston and perhaps throw Chambers into the mix; should provide the odd wry smile, if not outright chuckle. Right now, I remain concerned that the whole motley crew will escape censure, that the disgraceful deceit of all involved will be swept under that big, dusty old carpet and things will go along in the same old way; untroubled by concepts of justice, being responsible under law, retribution in law and any concept of honesty.

I wonder, can our erstwhile Senate committee be persuaded to find the time, energy and enthusiasm, to take the final step and put this anathema down; once and for all. They did half the job, in grand style. Another, short inquiry into the way the original was twisted and perverted, by whom, why and to who's benefit would restore Australian credibility and provide an instant change, for the better, throughout the industry.

To allow ATSB to investigate ATSB will destroy what small faith the public has in an accident report being fair, impartial, independent and honest. Further, CASA will know, with absolute certainty that they can get away with anything they choose; if they are allowed to escape, unscathed from one of the most abominable, disgusting perversions of an investigation into an air accident ever witnessed by the aviation world.

The industry cannot possibly function correctly and profitably with the spectre of Pel-Air putting fear in every cockpit, and disquiet in the minds of company investors. We need to be able to believe the facts, rely on evidence and most importantly, we need to be able to use the reports to develop strategy which will reduce the percentage chance of reoccurrence.

But, we cannot and dare not do that at the moment, can we Senators?

Selah.
Kharon is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 20:51
  #2550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Upon reflection - Words of an angry man.

A passionate post there Thorny...
When I saw the first media interviews over the NGA event with the angry man McComic, I thought there is personified, what may old Dad was talking about, and railed against, and believe me it took considerable railing to get him to rail against anything much, but he could spot an egotistical buffoon from half a mile away.

Listening to McComic rail against the pilot of NGA, before an investigation had even started, let alone been concluded, spelt it out for me.
Not to mention the angry man's interview to 4 corners which can still be viewed (if you can stand it) off the 4C website here - Video: Interview with John McCormick, Director Aviation Safety, CASA (Four Corners)

Fortunately most of that McComic rant was edited out of the 4C program - Crash Landing - however certain arrogant statements were captured to be a record forever stencilled into the minds of those that have been wronged by this man and his toxic regime...:
GEOFF THOMPSON: Almost three years after the ditching the Australian Transport Safety Bureau finally released its report last week.
The ATSB prides itself on being a 'no blame' investigator.

But its findings make it very clear that responsibility for the ditching rests primarily with the flight crew.

But there's a document which the Australian public was never meant to see.

It's CASA's special audit of Pel-Air, completed just after the ditching in 2009

It identifies significant deficiencies within the company's Westwind operations in Pel-Air.

What it describes sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
It lists numerous breaches of aviation regulations and legislation covering fuel policy, flight planning and pilot training.

JOHN MCCORMICK: None of those, 31 I think it is, requests for corrective action that we found when we did the in-depth audit of Pel-Air would've affected that accident or prevented that accident.

GEOFF THOMPSON: But given that the operator was failing in areas of fuel planning, fatigue, check and training, lack of support for pilots, and these were regulatory breaches, isn't that something the Australian public has the right to know about, given that that's what the operator was doing when this ditching occurred?

JOHN MCCORMICK: Well as I say, none of those particular incidents or events that we looked at within that audit would've prevented that accident. The accident was caused by poor fuel planning, poor decision making.
JOHN MCCORMICK: In the end it's only the pilot who can decide whether he is fatigued or he or she is fatigued and unable to conduct a flight.
JOHN MCCORMICK: The pilot shows an appalling lack of knowledge of what he thinks that flight plan is going to do. He did not know the route on which he was going to fly, he did not know what times he was going to leave one, what's called flight information region, and enter another. He was unsure of the flight times, he guessed three-and-a-half hours, and that's actually on the transcript. Well you can't guess these things.
JOHN MCCORMICK: Software is only a thing of today. You know, you can do this manually. When I started flying 40 years ago of course software didn't exist. Examinations tested theoretical knowledge of how you conduct those calculations or you make those calculations. And they can be done by longhand as well as by computerised software.
Ben Sandilands also watched the 4 Corners program that fateful night and was so outraged by the McComic performance that he immediately went to his keyboard and wrote this article - CASA caught playing the man not the company in ABC TV exposé on Pel-Air ditching :
The ABC TV 4 Corners report into the Norfolk Island Pel-Air ditching has this evening shown CASA’s director of safety, John McCormick, making an attack on the flight’s captain, Dominic James and excusing every single deficiency the regulator uncovered in the company during a safety audit as not being a cause of the accident.

However the program is also posting online the safety audit that CASA tried to keep secret and which materially contradicts McCormick in that the safety regulator he heads found among many things that Pel-Air was in breach of the safety rules and was inadequate in its management of fatigue.

The interview and the audit read side by side support the program’s opening premise that CASA scapegoated James in preference to carrying out its obligations under law to pursue the company.

McCormick would well know, and has insisted before the Senate Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety, that it is the airlines or operators that are responsible for safety outcomes.

As pilot James said near the end of the program, he was the pilot of a company that was being overseen by a regulator. Last night, on national television, the head of CASA unloaded all the blame for the accident on a pilot who had not even slept properly for two nights, and was employed by an operator that was so poorly overseen by CASA that it uncovered massive safety deficiencies, while benefiting from a defective CASA rule that excused it from operating as an air ambulance without sufficient fuel to fly to an alternate airport if for any reason a remote refueling airport in the middle of the ocean was rendered unavailable by bad weather.

McCormick’s performance and statements on air are not only inconsistent with the body of law on airline or operator responsibility for pilot training and standards, but were manifestly unfair to the pilot, even though the pilot undoubtedly made serious mistakes in the preparation of the flight, its fueling, and in dealing with the available weather information as the Westwind jet approached Norfolk Island from Apia.

(The 4 Corners report by Geoff Thompson also uncovered evidence that critical weather information had not been passed on to James at a point where had he known of the real situation at Norfolk Island he would have diverted to Nadi in Fiji rather than passing the point of no return where he had to continue to the intended tech stop.)

A fair question arising from McCormick’s performance is whether or not he is capable of taking direct public action against a high profile airline or operator other than Singapore owned Tiger Airways, given the severity of a series of safety failures at Jetstar that were also declared to be unworthy of investigation by the ‘independent’ safety regulator the ATSB.

Regulatory matters aside, the human suffering caused by the unsafe operation of the air ambulance flight by Pel-Air was movingly documented by the program, as was the vigilance and determination of their rescuers on Norfolk Island that brought all six souls to safety from the wild and dark sea in which they had to tread water for close to 90 minutes.

It is utterly shameful to hear that Pel-Air has not once been in touch with Bernie Currall or her husband Gary since the accident, and to see the ruin and despair that the operator’s unsafe and negligent conduct brought to their lives, as well as to Karen Casey the nurse who has lost her livelihood and suffers continued pain from her injuries.

McCormick heads a safety regulator that approved the removal of special life rafts from Qantaslink turbo-props serving Lord Howe Island, and has been unable to release any safety case or statement as to why it allowed this to happen other than the downwards harmonization of Australian standards to the depths of world’s best practice.

It is also an organization that has never explained the safety case that saw it determine that the sort of aerial work performed by the Pel-Air flight didn’t need to carry enough fuel to make a diversion from an oceanic airstrip in bad weather, although it has only recently expressed an ‘intention’ to change a rule it should never have tolerated in the first instance.

The 4 Corners program is an indictment of shamefully deficient standards and oversight by our safety regulator, as well as its disposition to crucify a pilot rather than the company responsible for the flight and safety standards of its operations.

The program, and the supporting documentation, will be readily found on the ABC site in the near future.
What is quite remarkable is that Ben's article has stood the test of time and this was despite not being privy to the huge volumes of information uncovered in the Senate Inquiry - which included a certain Wodger Wabbit's weport...

MTF...especially the part in bold above which IMO holds the key to a proper re-investigation by an independent State AAI - not Sanga & his tainted trough feeding mates...

I'll be back!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 21:59
  #2551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,077
Thorn Bird:

Same as the Airtex stitch up, allegedly McComic screamed "I don't care what you do, or how you do it, just SHUT THEM DOWN"

So in the same manner as Airtex, Wodger defined a whole list of requirements that he was sure would ensure Domenic James would never fly again.

This from a man with no operational experience other than throwing a few bags about for the military.

He appointed himself the Prosecutor, Jury, Judge and finally executioner.

When James confounded the Wabbit by achieving the onerous requirements in short order, he was forced to return Domenic James Licence to him, but with a string attached.

Further draconian requirements were dreamt up, a whispering campaign begun, with threats of CAsA attention against anyone who provided Domenic James with employment.

Wherever he travelled in Australia the campaign followed on his heels.

YET HE BROKE NO Australian LAW.

But he broke McComics law, was tried by Chambers, was found guilty by Chambers, in Chambers court, and was sentenced to aviation purgatory by Chambers.

Domenic James is just one of many who have felt the attention of the Bankstown ex RAAF baggage handler.

I fear this sociopathic lunatic will will continue unimpeded on his rampage through Bankstown industry. Ably assisted by his black widow handmaiden he's pretty much wiped out whats left of Bankstown aviation businesses.

To what end? Just a warped misfit encouraged by an egotistical comic?

Or as is generally the case when things make little logical sense, follow the money!! .......Ah the murky manipulator....

Still a few dots to join, but we are getting closer and closer to the real picture of just what and why strange things happen at Bankstown Airport.
'
Most of us know CAsA is corrupt, just how corrupt remains to be seen.

Can anyone imagine that the "Reopened" inquiry will be anything else but a reiteration of Mc Comic edict that "the pilot dun it".

Cant be anything else after the Wabbit was let loose on Mr. James.

Money will do the talking, and after the rabbits effort, any honest report could make Mr. James a rather wealthy individual, not to mention the other people who were involved and so shabbily treated by the machiavellian manipulator and his co-conspirators.
Mr. Thorn Bird, what you have said about Mr. Rodger Chambers - Manager, Operations, Sydney Region, is defamatory. Since Truth is now a complete defence in NSW, I presume the reason he hasn't sued you is that he knows every word you have written is true?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 22:35
  #2552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
To take action in a case as this, and this may be alien to anyone at CAsA, that person must prove that he has been defamed and has suffered financial harm. This may open up things best left in the locked box that may put more names in the frame and that could make others unhappy. There is a certain protection provided to the CAsA employee for actions against them.


In effect, and for once, the burden of proof is reversed.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 23:49
  #2553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 356
I've been told Dr Michael Walker is in charge of the reopened ATSB investigation. Presumably he will be interested in receiving any new or significant information.
slats11 is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2014, 09:44
  #2554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A honest man?? – Yes please (we must have one)..

Slats me 'old. A boffin ! - in a snake pit?. Nah. There is little doubt Walker is a fine specimen, adept, qualified and very, very able. But to do what ? – decide whether he is reviewing the original evidence table; or, the one Sangmore changed to meet Dolan's demands? It's a reasonable question: given the e-mail communications between White and Sangmore. There is even a little 'wriggle' room for both as Chambers was 'in-charge' of the "feed" White was getting and 'communicating' to his new best mate, Sangmore.

Aye, it's all passing strange; but, unless Walker is a specialist 'investigator', he will find that the 'original' was awful close to the 'dux nutz'; what happened to that information after it was presented?– well, that's anyone's guess. But that children, is certainly not of concern for the honest Walker, who's wages are paid by the ATSB, to wade through. Will the 'three amico's' stitch him up, quick as wink? No es brainer; non es problemo..

Selah.

Last edited by Kharon; 18th Dec 2014 at 09:59. Reason: Sangmore? well: with your nuts in a vice – believe me, you will sing. Chuckle..
Kharon is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2014, 10:04
  #2555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 26
Sorry Thorn Bird...while DJ wore the blame for a lot of Pel-Air's issues it is not correct to say he followed the OM and all rules and regs.

DJ got shafted, but he shouldn't be held as the sixth victim. PA should cop blame, CASA should cop blame, ATSB should cop blame and DJ should cop blame.
Lester Burnham is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2014, 20:50
  #2556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
True dat – however.

True enough Lester – but only James out of the four has had the integrity to admit he made mistakes and the courage to wear them. The rest, well you know the tale. Maybe we will find out why responsible, well paid agents of the government went to such extraordinary lengths to avoid owning, as James has publicly done, 'their' rightful portion of involvement in the causal chain. There must be a reason for their reprehensible, collective actions. FFS, they even tried to mislead the inquiry – why?, well that is the question, ain't it.

The James crucifixion was just icing on the cake for a scalp-hunter and an excuse to plagiarise the work of qualified, better men; used to assist climbing the slippery pole. Getting to the truth of it is a job for the AFP and the Senators, not Mike Walker, who, if he had any sense would obtain, written permission, parliamentary privilege and full support to use all the toys, or walk away from the microscope. As it stands, revisiting the original report just plays into the Murky Machiavellian hands; polite notes will be exchanged, some window dressing rearranged and normal 'service' will be resumed, with scarcely a ripple. Those who perpetrated this atrocity believe they will skip away to do it all over again: as and when it best pleases.

We know Dom dropped the ball, it's preventing a reoccurrence of both that and the ensuing aftermath which we must prevent. Never again can the opinion of one man be supported by a gross perversion of our national air safety systems. Those systems must be impeccable and as good as we can possibly make them. They are not some child's toy, to be picked up, used and abused, only to be dropped in the mud, on a whim.

Mike Walker will need a lot more juice than he presently has to get this crock home. All he can do is pedal like crazy and dutifully take his results back to the same trio who 'stage managed' the last little episode. They'll yawn, fart and sit on it for another couple or three years, before eventually allowing a carefully 'Sangsitised' version to be seen by those who matter. What a joke, what a mockery of the Senate and a good long Mickey Bliss on the travelling public. Yup, they got style.

Toot toot.

PS : Thorny – I want an invite to 'that' party, but, be advised; I won't be holding the jackets...
Kharon is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2014, 03:04
  #2557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Angry DJ reply to belittling, offensive & puerile Sanga missive

My 2 bobs worth...

Dom should be asking for assurances that:

1) Given that both the Senate inquiry and TSBC report highlighted that the current MoU between CASA & ATSB is hugely flawed and weighted against the principles of Annex 13 (& now Annex 19); (also because of the Senate findings) the MoU is currently under review; can Sanga provide assurances that the re-investigation will not be operating under the auspices of the MoU.

2) Given that both the Senate inquiry; and, in particular the TSBC report highlighted that the ATSB DIP/review process is flawed and highly vulnerable to 3rd party interference (conflict of interest) - can Dom get any written assurances that any of the original reviewers etc. (including the Commissioners) from the ATSB will not, in anyway be involved with the re-investigation.

3) Given the Senate inquiry and the TSBC report (in particular) highlighted that the autonomy of the IIC control (as per Annex 13) over the original investigation was severely eroded - can Dom get assurances that this will not happen again. This is a matter of trust; would it not be advisable that the Chief Commissioner appoint an independant special investigator (AFP officer or Parliamentary delegate), as per s63E of the TSI Act to oversee the integrity of this re investigation.

(a) This appointment would be highly desirable given the original investigation when examined by the Senate Committee highlighted many instances of suspect interference that could possibly be construed as breaches of s24 of the TSI Act.

(b) This appointment would also be advisable given the current outstanding MoP before the Senate Privileges Committee and also suspect interference/manipulation with Senate Inquiry Documents held under Parliamentary Privilege.

4) As the Senate Committee and now the TSBC are, by definition, Directly Interested Parties (DIP) to this re-investigation will they be involved in the DIP process?? If not why not?? And if not would Dom (or any other DIP) in the interests of transparency be allowed to appoint or suggest an accredited representative to the re-investigation as per Annex 13 5.23 and subject to the conditions outlined in 5.24 to 5.26. Also if the FDR/CVR is miraculously recovered consideration should be given to the recordings being examined by an independent ICAO signatory state (as per 5.1 & 5.23) - with the necessary expertise of course...

I could go on...& on but..

I'll be back!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2014, 18:59
  #2558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 491
..a whispering campaign begun, with threats of CAsA attention against anyone who provided Domenic James with employment.
Wherever he travelled in Australia the campaign followed on his heels.
It does look like someone is poisening his well, so to speak. I wonder as an employer would he be my first choice out of the pile of CVs, with or without external influence.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2014, 07:18
  #2559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Planetalking Opinion - PelAir re-investigation.

Reopened Pel-Air inquiry could be on slippery slope to ruin

Ben Sandilands | Dec 20, 2014 4:23PM | EMAIL | PRINT

Now, where exactly is that flight data recorder (and why)?


There is rising concern in the aviation sector that the Pel-Air accident re-opening may, like some other recent reforms, be on a slippery slope leading to Australia losing its status, as well as its reputation, in matters of air safety administration.

The immediate concern is that the air safety investigator, the ATSB, has been too vague in its statements, including this one, about looking at possible errors in its investigation of the Pel-Air crash near Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009.

That was a small crash with big consequences, which are on-going, and have been reported at great length in Plane Talking and elsewhere, and led to a group of all party Australian Senators, discovering that the safety regulator, CASA, and the supposedly independent ATSB, had shown more concern for framing all of the blame for the crash on the pilot, rather than pursuing matters that cast grave doubts over the operator, Pel-Air, and the regulator, who had failed to carry out their obligations to standards and oversights, according to various definitions and regulations.

The reason for the Pel-Air inquiry being re-opened is that an independent peer review by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) of the ATSB’s procedures and methodologies in arriving at its final accident report identified failings serious enough for Warren Truss, the deputy Prime Minister and Minister responsible for aviation among other things, to call for such action.

The release of the TSBC peer review was delayed because of resistance to the original draft copies within the Minister’s department and the ATSB, and the ultimate version, which sets out to make all of the appropriate soothing noises, left its extraordinary disclosures of internal turmoil, and dubious conduct of the inquiry, for the second part of the final version, perhaps on the assumption that anyone who carefully and attentively read the early parts would have lapsed into a coma before getting that far.

Nevertheless, the Minister acted, and on 6 December, based on very, very good advice, Plane Talking reported that a replacement for the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, would be announced, and some serious work on the matters identified in the TSBC report would occur.
That appointment hasn’t yet occurred, and the report in Plane Talking is either wrong or premature. Since then Plane Talking has seen correspondence which would suggest to a reasonable reader that a determined effort to frustrate what might be the Minister’s best intentions (or not) is underway.

It seems like the iron clad rule of life in public administration in Australia, that it takes precedence over the elected executive branch, and will run right over the top of injured or damaged parties without any concern other than keeping Ministers compliant, and administrative decisions untouched, is being pursued with determination.

But not necessarily success. The Pel-Air genie is out of the bottle, and Australia is in the humiliating position of attempting to maintain the validity of a nasty second rate accident report that by world’s best practice is a joke.

Mr Truss could emulate his Labor predecessor, Anthony Albanese, and run away from accountability for the quality of the report, and the woeful lack of progress in reforming and administering the air safety regulations of this country. It might however be very wrong to assume he is that weak, and no such assumption is being entertained here for the immediate future.

The problem for Mr Truss, and the ATSB and CASA is that the work done by his own coalition colleagues, Senators Bill Heffernan and David Fawcett, Labor’s Glenn Sterle, and independent Nick Xenophon, is notably and in copious detail, damning of the conduct of Martin Dolan, and the former director of air safety for CASA, John McCormick, and uncovered matters relating to the conduct of CASA and the ATSB that are in Hansard for everyone to find and digest.

Make no mistake, that conduct in relation specifically to the Pel-Air matters, as well as some necessarily broader issues, was second rate, prejudicial to damaged or injured parties, sub-standard by world’s best practice and inherently contrary to the safety interests of airlines and their passengers flying within or to and from this country.

Pel-Air, in the TSBC, and in the Senate committees that have probed those matters, is a small plane crash indicating much bigger questions need to be asked about the conduct of both authorities, as well as the now discredited position taken by the secretary of the department of Infrastructure, Mike Mrdak, that there was no safety benefit to be had in re-opening the crash inquiry.

The senators named above have no intention of letting this matter go through to the keeper. They will keep hammering away at this until the matters are cleared up, and Mr Dolan removed from his role at the ATSB, in the process of dealing with more serious safety administration issues.

The current public stance taken by the ATSB is highly unsatisfactory.
Who could possibly trust this body to inquire into itself, which is what it would be doing by reopening the crash investigation?

Pel-Air needs to be re-investigated, as best as can now be done, by an independent body. The TSBC was specifically precluded from looking into the actual events and causes of the Pel-Air medical evacuation flight being ditched in the sea near near Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009.

It might well be time to lift that silly prohibition made by a desperate ATSB when it hit upon the idea of a peer review, and have the TSBC do the job.
No-one associated with the culture of the ATSB in recent times, or in any way associated with the previous deeply flawed Pel-Air inquiry, should be allowed to run any part of this new inquiry. Australia’s air safety status and reputation is on the line.

Although it may seem cosmetic to some, and possible futile because of salt water contamination, the flight data recorder on the crashed jet should be recovered and examined.

If the FDR isn’t there, a criminal investigation needs to be conducted as to who paid whom what amount of money and for what purpose to move it, or, what other circumstances led to its disappearance, or even its return to the site.

Which is another way of saying the investigation needs to be very, very thorough. We don’t need lying any more than incompetency in the administration of air safety in this country, and if the government is serious about ending this controversy it will insist the new inquiry puts all of these matters to rest, impartially and as forensically, and as fairly in terms of procedure, as may be needed.


I'll be back!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2014, 08:16
  #2560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 289
If the FDR isn’t there, a criminal investigation needs to be conducted as to who paid whom what amount of money and for what purpose to move it, or, what other circumstances led to its disappearance, or even its return to the site.
What info has led to this statement?
Ex Douglas Driver is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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