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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 28th Sep 2013, 00:10
  #1541 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
More ammo for Nick’s FRMS & CAO 48.1 disallowance motion!!

Remember this (and Creamy’s education on Senate ‘Disallowance Motions’)??

DMCAO 48.1

Well apparently EASA have similar issues to FF on new proposed rules (from Aviation-Safety NET article):
BALPA claims half of pilots have fallen asleep while flying
27 September 2013

The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) released findings of survey, claiming half of pilots have fallen asleep while flying.

On September 30 the European Parliament’s transport committee will vote on a European Commission proposal to tighten and standardise flight time limits for pilots across the European Union. This proposal has been under fire from European pilots unions for several months.

On September 26, the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA), released the findings of a survey on flight time limits. Of the 500 commercial pilots that participated, 56% say they have fallen asleep on the flight deck and of those who admitted this, nearly 1 in 3 (29%) said they woke to find the other pilot asleep.

Also, 31% don’t believe their airline has a culture that lends itself to reporting tiredness concerns with a half (51%) saying they believed their airline Chief Executive would back them if they refused to fly because of tiredness.

Jim McAuslan, General Secretary of BALPA, said about these findings: “Tiredness is already a major challenge for pilots who are deeply concerned that unscientific new EU rules will cut UK standards and lead to increased levels of tiredness, which has been shown to be a major contributory factor in air accidents.”

EASA has previoulsy issued a statement on the concerns voiced by the European Cockpit Association, stating amongst others: “More than 50 scientific studies were analysed, with a particular focus on the effects of disruptive schedule, while all concerned stakeholder groups including flight and cabin crew organisations, airlines, and Member State representatives were consulted throughout the process.”

More information:
Perhaps more fuel to the fire that the Senators, ably led by Nick, have already lit and another potential headache for the DAS and his GWM cronies??

Why would it take CAsA more than 4 months to still not respond to a relatively simple question from Sen Fawcett in relation to an even more basic task of purchasing some I.T??

I think the Senator is having the pi#s taken out of him by these clowns who see fit not to show an ounce of accountability to anybody.
To be fair to the DAS, FF are not on their Pat Malone when it comes to being unresponsive to outstanding QONs from Senate Estimates. In fact if you take a look at Kingcrat's whole remit you will see none have responded...


A quick flick through other Government Departments response to Estimate QONs makes the above webpage link extremely embarrassing for the DoIT Crats. Here is a couple of examples:

Parliamentary Depts

ps Slight thread drift..interesting article by Ben on the possible safety advantages of inflight WIFI use. Which was on the back of upcoming recommendations on the relaxing of restrictions on the use of PEDs (in flight) by the FAA.

Comet's comment makes common sense(there's a rhyme!):
Lots of things don’t make sense.
1. Why aren’t electronic components on flights shielded from electromagnetic radiation such as Wi-Fi? It’s not that hard to shield against. Mobile phones have been in common use since the mid-1980s. Why haven’t they done it?
2. Although car radio broadcasts in road tunnels can be interrupted to play emergency messages, I can’t see any way for that to happen over Wi-Fi, as computer users aren’t watching an incoming audio/video stream that can be interrupted.
3. Why is the FAA thinking of regulating what activity you can do with your Wi-Fi on a plane (NYTimes reports that watching podcasts and videos on takeoff will be allowed, but sending emails will be banned… huh?)
4. How on earth do false collision alarms get triggered by passenger Wi-Fi? They’re not on the same frequency. The passenger Wi-Fi is very week at that distance. Sounds like a scapegoat.
5. Pilots themselves use their mobile phones on landing, as we saw with Jetstar in Singapore.
On a recent Emirates flight over the Indian Ocean, I held my tablet computer in the vicinity of a window, and it registered a GPS location, which I was sharing with other people around the world. My tablet actually sent its location out via the inflight Wi-Fi system. If that had been Air France AF447, I would not be writing this post, but they would have found the wreckage a lot quicker than what they did!
Hmm..wonder how long it will take FF to catch up with the good old 'US of A', maybe a while given the comments from CAsA's mouthpiece:
Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority will watch the US administration's recommendations and subsequent decision closely. ''We need to wait and see what the advisory panel recommends and then what the FAA decides to do and when,'' CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said. ''It is likely to take some time for the FAA to make changes.''
But because the Australian agency hadn't yet seen the recommendations, it was ''a way off yet'' before changes, if any, would be implemented in Australia.
It is understood some Australian airlines have already approached the agency to change the rules, but their requests were rejected. The authority has a number of concerns about devices becoming distractions during safety briefings, or turning into projectiles.
"Take some time"...err "wait and see" (try sometime in the next decade!) being the operative words . But the last paragraph (in bold) perhaps takes the cake for how out of touch and in the dark ages is our beloved third world regulator!

Last edited by Sarcs; 28th Sep 2013 at 08:02.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 23:07
  #1542 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
CAsA take note!

Addendum to my previous post

Looks like it is back to the drawing board for the EU parliament on proposed flight duty changes..

Breakthrough for aviation safety: EU Parliament rejects flawed flight time rules

CAsA beware Nick, Senator Rhiannon & co will soon be back on the warpath and they may be garnering more support for Nick's CAO 48.1 disallowance motion

Senator Xenophon:
Senator XENOPHON: Further to that, there is widespread concern amongst pilots about the flight-time duty regulations, the relatively recent regulations, and the risk they pose to aviation safety.

I understand that these concerns have been put to you, but the reports I have had back are that CASA, and you in particular, have been I think the word is dismissive of them. Why is it the case that the pilots I have spoken to, some very senior pilots with many thousands of hours of experience, have expressed to me that they are at the coalface, and they say that there is a real issue in terms of these new regulations?

For instance, I am told that in certain circumstances under the new regulations CASA allows two pilots to be on duty for 14 hours and to be at the controls for 10 hours. I am told that the science indicates 12 to 13 hours maximum duty in ideal conditions and that fatigue risk increases substantially beyond 16 hours awake. If there is a delay in the flight through weather or whatever—many pilots I have spoken to, including representatives of pilots groups, are incredibly concerned about the new flight-time limitation rules.
Senator Rhiannon:
Senator RHIANNON: Can you or any of your colleagues share some information? You have signed off on CAO 48. It is your first point in 1.12 of a document that I imagine you have put considerable work into, and it has there 'after 16 hours awake'.
Surely somebody could give us some background to this, please.
And Senator Rhiannon's, yet to be answered QONs, pages 36-38 of index: RRAT Senate Estimates QONs index

Hmm..god forbid if the DAS and his cronies have yet another flawed regulation dragged through the parliament for review..."mea culpa after mea culpa"...comes to mind! {Senator Edwards your a gem }
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2013, 06:08
  #1543 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 474
If "Albo" gets to be the new Labor top dog does anyone believe that the Libs won't throw anything including this at him?
I think that its far from dead.
Wunwing is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2013, 00:12
  #1544 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Lessons still to be learnt from AF447!

Ben's article yesterday perhaps highlights the biggest outstanding human factor safety risk in the modern day airline environment:
AF447disaster pilots not emergency trained-Coroner

A Coronial inquest into the deaths of two UK nationals who were on Air France AF447 when it crashed into the mid Atlantic ocean in 2009 has brought some critical issues in air safety into the public arena.

While this BBC report doesn’t add to what air safety observers have already learned about the disaster, it does talk in lay terms about pilot training, and growing concerns that cockpit automation raises issues not properly addressed by many airlines.

This is important. In the course of Senate committee discussions in this country, as well as in various safety forums and statements made by safety agencies abroad, there is concern about an airline management tendency to believe that pilots should be required to do as little hands on flying as possible, and leave as much of the control of flight function as possible to computer aided automation.

What numerous incidents in both Airbus and Boeing types have demonstrated, as recently as the Asiana crash at San Francisco, ‘hands off’ can end badly if anything abnormal occurs that requires pilot skills to identify and rectify or recover from.

In Qantas there has been a long and admirable emphasis on ‘recovery upset’ in pilot training. It has saved the airline from the terrible potential consequences of an A380 engine disintegration (QF32) near Singapore in 2010 as well as a control incident with an A330 that forced an emergency landing at Learmonth in 2008, and an electrical crisis in a Boeing 747 fortunately while close to Bangkok Airport in 2008. Among others!

How traditional, and highly successful skills in upset recovery can be maintained in contemporary airliner operations is a much argued or discussed issue for airlines, air safety regulators, certifying authorities and the manufacturers.
This relevance has been underlined by incidents in which the most modern of airliners, with safety records arguably underpinned by automation, have been challenged, sometimes disastrously, by events for which the pilots were inadequately prepared.
While we are in this limbo before the parliamentary schedule etc is being sorted out and fires up again... ...perhaps now is a good time to rehash a recommendation from the Senate 'Pilot Training and Airline Safety' inquiry that promised a review of the findings of the tragic AF447 crash investigation:
Recommendation 9
2.299 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Australian aviation operators review the final findings of France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis into Air France 447, including consideration of how it may apply in the Australian context. Subject to those findings, the committee may seek the approval of the Senate to conduct a further hearing in relation to the matter.
IMO it would be an indictment on the new government to ignore this recommendation and continued to obfuscate the matter like the previous government...the AF 447 (although tragic) findings and subsequent commentary, provide a very real warning shot that the worldwide aviation industry cannot afford to ignore!

Excellent article and essential reading from Flight Global on AF447 & LOC-1: Upsetting convention

..and PT follow up to AF447 article: Contest of the Control Freaks grows louder after AF447

Last edited by Sarcs; 3rd Oct 2013 at 02:22.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2013, 04:41
  #1545 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 586
The fact that LOC-I has developed as a phenomenon proves the industry has a fundamental training problem. UPRT is only the sticking plaster. The industry needs to treat the disease.
The FAA has already come to the view that hours in the logbook is one way to fix the problem. I think the evidence is clear that MPLs, 250 hour jet pilots with more time in the simulator does not create a more competent pilot, it creates a pilot with a skill set that is suited to normal operations and nothing more. The Inquiry into pilot training also recommended that jet F/O's have a minimum of 1500hours but this was dismissed by Albo and friends.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 06:53
  #1546 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,951
The FAA has already come to the view that hours in the logbook is one way to fix the problem. I think the evidence is clear that MPLs, 250 hour jet pilots with more time in the simulator does not create a more competent pilot, it creates a pilot with a skill set that is suited to normal operations and nothing more. The Inquiry into pilot training also recommended that jet F/O's have a minimum of 1500hours but this was dismissed by Albo and friends.

Almost 60 years of statistics are against you, very decisively so.

None of the pilots in recent highly publicised loss of control accidents were low hour pilots --- and I hope you are not suggesting that learning stops at the conclusion of an ab nitio training course.
Quite frankly, for civil pilots who have only light GA backgrounds, pre-airline hours have little relevance, except in the area of unlearning bad habits all too common in GA.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Albo and friends: the friends included most of the bigger Australian operators.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 07:15
  #1547 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
Originally Posted by Ludslud
None of the pilots in recent highly publicised loss of control accidents were low hour pilots
So I suppose you reckon the AF FOs, with 4,000+ hours, were quite OK? That 4,000 probably translated into what, 10 hours real stick time, actual eyeballs going everywhere "IF" time? Give me a 2000hr Braz pilot any day. Don't worry, I'll beat those bad GA habits out of him quick smart.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 08:58
  #1548 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 586
Leady the last 10 years certainly does suggest there is something seriously wrong with the skill set airline pilots have if otherwise serviceable aircraft are literally falling out of the sky. If you look at the experience of the F/O who was controlling the aircraft it is most likely that he came from an ab ignitio program. As I mentioned a lot of the cadet programs and PAYG schemes that are prevalent do not produce a more competent pilot outside of normal operations. As evidence of this day in and day out thousands of flights are conducted that arrive safely. The concern is for those flights that end up outside the normal operation. It's not just me saying this it's many aviation blogs and articles that are starting to question current training practices. It has been my experience that civil pilots from GA backgrounds develop a lot of non- technical skills that cannot be taught in a simulator. Things like SOPs and airline culture come after induction and 100+ hours of line training.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 12:26
  #1549 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,421
As I mentioned a lot of the cadet programs and PAYG schemes that are prevalent do not produce a more competent pilot outside of normal operations. As evidence of this day in and day out thousands of flights are conducted that arrive safely
Agree. When ATSB recently produced their favourable report on low hour pilot competency it was based upon a compilation of proficiency checks in simulators and line training garnered from three major Australian operators. No prize for guessing which three.

The result was unsurprising as arguably 90% of these assessments conducted by the airlines on themselves was on automatic pilot. Of course there was no conflict of interest either. No way would the airlines concerned express concern on the standard of the low hour pilots in their own airline since it would reflect adversely on their selection process.

Last edited by A37575; 5th Oct 2013 at 12:30.
A37575 is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 15:39
  #1550 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,951
I am well aware of the general trends of thought, with which I agree, about the deterioration in handling competency.
There is no shortage of research on the subject, FSF and FAA are two places to look.
However, blaming all that on ab nitio training, when somebody has been an airline pilot for some years, is another thing altogether. To me and many others, there are multiple deficiencies in many airlines' continuation training, even airlines whose upset training is a good as (not very good) a modern simulator allows.
And, of course, upsets are as old as aviation, they didn't suddenly start to occur with the advent of airline cadet pilots.
As for Bloggs' comments, typical of somebody whose horizon and perceptions end at the Australian 12 mile limit. Bloggs, old chap, you are not going to turn the clock (and a goodly percentage of the airline industry) back 60 years.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 18:55
  #1551 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Time passes

Popgun # 1 - 6/10/10.

Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety
I am writing to advise you that on 30 September 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2010.

(a) pilot experience requirements and the consequence of any reduction in flight hour requirements on safety;
(b) the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;
(c) current industry practices to recruit pilots, including pay-for-training schemes and the impact such schemes may have on safety;
(d) retention of experienced pilots;
(e) type rating and recurrent training for pilots;
(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector; etc.
Three years ago, Popgun kicked off this thread, the Senate Committee was quite rightly concerned, as are most of the rest of the world about pilot training and standards. The committee was essentially told to bugger off and read the great, soft white paper, which said "no worries", CASA have it under control: then we get part 61, just to prove it.....

The young'ns coming through today are no less or more competent than they were 30 years ago; they want to learn and, as 'volunteers', they are most willing to learn. As usual that learning occurs through self funding (in whatever format), which again proves willingness and determination to become professional flight crew. But somewhere in there, there is a 'gap' (for want of better) – which is becoming noticeable. Perhaps there is enough expertise about the place to define the 'gap' and place a well written, short, accurate submission into the willing hands of D. Fawcett esq. or Sen. Xenophon stating the case as asking could we please revisit the issues. I am certain they are still a tad miffed with the "white paper" episode, still concerned that there is something (as yet undefined) wrong within the system and; in all probability, would try to get things sorted as best they may.

Think on, in the last three years the problems at flight school level have probably transitioned from a harmless Jabiru onto the flight decks of passenger jet transport, in another three years, those issues may be training and checking pilots.

So, what d'ya say boys; bicker on PPRuNe or provide solutions. Hell, we do it all day at work; identify the problem, execute the fix and get home in time for tea. Surely this little problem is not beyond the collective intelligence of the once proud Australian aviation communities.

Last edited by Kharon; 5th Oct 2013 at 18:57.
Kharon is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2013, 22:19
  #1552 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,458
Kharon, a good post.
Having observed the skill sets of one or two newbies fresh out of flying school, I have a suspicion you may be right, there does seem to be something lacking in their basic training.
Difficult to put your finger on it, but I suspect a lot of box ticking goes on during their early training as opposed to ensuring their competence levels.
I have some sympathy for our regulator as I believe competence can be a very esoteric subject and as we know our regulations in Australia fall under the criminal code where things must be in black and white.
The new massive part 61 attempts to set everything in cement by micro managing the entire process. The problem with that, I believe is there can be no allowance made for each individuals abilities, the whole process becomes massively expensive and encourages even more box ticking.
It would appear that Australia has priced itself out of the training of foreign students in favour of New Zealand, I believe Part 61 will do the same thing to our local market.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2013, 23:03
  #1553 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Time passes and the cannon is primed!

Perhaps there is enough expertise about the place to define the 'gap' and place a well written, short, accurate submission into the willing hands of D. Fawcett esq. or Sen. Xenophon stating the case as asking could we please revisit the issues. I am certain they are still a tad miffed with the "white paper" episode, still concerned that there is something (as yet undefined) wrong within the system and; in all probability, would try to get things sorted as best they may.
Perhaps it is time to reflect on the combined wisdom and efforts of Sen X & Sen Fawcett (in all things ugly and white papered over) to do with aviation safety in Oz...

Senator Xenophon: Pilot Training & Airline Safety Senate Report Comments

PelAir Report additional comments

Senator Fawcett: Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill - Speech

Airport Amendment Bill Govt response - Speech

But my all time favourite from DF recently and worth regurgitating in its entirety (borrowed from Ben):
Pel-Air air safety issues spelt out by pilot and Senator, David Fawcett

A parliamentary speech that everyone concerned about the safety of the flying public, and the competency and integrity of CASA and the ATSB should read

Earlier this week Senator David Fawcett (Liberal, South Australia) urged the upper house of Australia’s federal parliament to ‘take note’ of the Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s final report into the 2009 Pel-Air crash and related matters.

Senator Fawcett was a military helicopter pilot, and was the Commanding Officer, RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit, Edinburgh, SA, and an experimental test pilot, before being elected to public office.
He played a very measured and penetrating role in the air accident investigation committee hearings which were were instigated by fellow SA independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

This is Senator Fawcett’s address to the motion that the Senate take note of the committee’s findings. Whatever the attitude of the government and opposition benches to the Pel-Air matters, the disgrace they brought on CASA and the ATSB will neither be forgiven nor go away.

This is about the safety of the Australian public, and the functioning of the bodies charged to regulate air safety (CASA) and investigate safety issues to further air safety (ATSB). In the Hansard of Senator Fawcell’s speech some emphasis has been added by Plane Talking.

Senator FAWCETT I move:
 That the Senate take note of the report: 
The final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations was tabled in May this year.

It followed a long period of investigation into the inquiry by the ATSB into the accident in which a Pel-Air aircraft ditched off Norfolk Island in 2009.

The Senate report highlighted that the performance of the two government agencies that were primarily involved, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, came far short of the expectations that the Australian taxpayer, this parliament and the aviation community should have.

In 2010 a review was done into the operations of those two agencies.
Of the eight desired outcomes of that review, the committee found that actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against six of the main areas.
I will list them and then talk in more detail about them.

They failed to maximise the beneficial aviation safety outcomes that could have been derived from the investigation into this incident.

They failed to enhance public confidence in aviation safety.

I think we saw that in the controversy in the aviation industry and the media around the report when it was finally released.

They failed to support the adoption of a systemic approach to aviation safety.

They failed to promote and conduct ATSB independent no-blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assured a clear and publicly perceived distinction between each agency’s complementary safety related objectives, as well as CASA’s specialised enforcement related obligations; they also failed to avoid to the extent practicable any impediments in the performance of each other’s functions.
They also failed to acknowledge errors and to be committed in practice to seeking constant improvement.

The committee made 26 recommendations to address a number of systemic deficiencies that were identified in both the investigative and regulatory processes but also in funding and reporting.

Safety outcomes is one area that I would like to touch on.

Accident investigations are an opportunity for an informed and expert body to sit back and take a considered look at why an incident occurred.
That body may be expert but they are not necessarily the best judges of how the lessons from that incident may be applied to other sectors of the aviation industry.

The committee found that for various reasons and over time the ATSB processes have got to the point where much evidence can be excluded if it does not fall into the categories that they consider will impact on high-risk future operations. So we have a situation where they are making an arbitrary decision to exclude evidence, and without evidence they are not then investigating or reporting on what actually occurred.

That means that other aviation operations are not the beneficiaries of an explanation of occurrences and failures in a system safety approach and what defences failed such that the accident occurred. It has been the traditional approach to identify each of those factors and let the stakeholders make their own assessment. But the safety outcomes are no longer optimised because of this approach of trying to make that arbitrary decision at the front.

That is a significant flaw in the current approach which the committee has recommended be revisited.

The report and CASA’s statements in name supported the concept of a systemic approach to aviation safety.
But what we found very clearly was that the investigation focused very quickly on the pilot in command on the night, as opposed to looking at the raft of other factors.

Looking at the James Reason model of system safety, one sees that there are a number of defences which are in place, which include the operating company, the regulator and a raft of things—training et cetera—as well as the pilot. But many of those factors were given, at best, lip-service. They were mentioned in the report so a box could be ticked to say that they were considered, without a detailed consideration of them.
For that reason, the report was quite flawed.

What made the matter worse was that, having required both CASA and ATSB to produce documents for the inquiry, which initially they were reluctant to do, we spent some considerable time going through literally boxes and boxes of documents to find information, emails, reports and things that were relevant to the report and, having seen a report that said that the company was applying all of its regulatory requirements and CASA was auditing it and so there were no organisational factors to consider, we found that CASA in fact had done a special audit.

Not only had they done a special audit that found a range of problems within the company; they had done their own internal report about CASA’s performance of their oversight of the company and found that, in their own words, that was deficient.

So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, ‘No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,’ they chose not to do that.
That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation.

It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations.
That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change.
So the ATSB, in its approach to its report, and CASA, by withholding that information, have done the aviation industry in Australia a great disservice.

The aviation industry relies on open, transparent and accurate reporting from the regulator and from the safety investigation agency to make sure that the organisations concerned can be ongoing learning organisations that maximise the safety outcomes for the travelling public and for people operating aircraft.

The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this.

The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment.

To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields.
There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.

The last point I would raise is that the Chambers report indicated that CASA felt they were under resourced and their people, in many cases, did not have the requisite insight and, in some cases, skills, knowledge or background to do the auditing.
From subsequent discussions, I would argue that, in some cases, they did not have the background to be writing the regulations or standards in the first place.

I believe there is a strong requirement to look at the regulatory reform process and the role that industry should have, not just with token consultation but with a powerful voice, even to the point of veto, where they can work with the regulator to highlight what is industry best practice, and that should form the basis of regulation unless there is a very clear safety case to not go down that path.

Australia’s travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better.
I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring.
Hear..hear! & Minister take note NX and DF are honorary members of the "IOS"!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2013, 21:31
  #1554 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The accursed grapevine.

There's a very unsettling rumour doing the rounds, that despite the best efforts being made by various folk, ol' trusty Truss has done a deal with devil in the name of saving face. I do hope it's unfounded; there will not be too much face left to save if the unthinkable occurs.

I can't believe it, but it sort of makes sense; in a bizarre, twisted way......
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2013, 21:58
  #1555 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,605
done a deal with devil
One hopes he keeps his receipts.

It's strange that he wouldn't hedge his bets by having a fallback to blame Albo if or when the big silver bird "augers" in. By getting into bed with the devil he makes himself a "buckstop". Or is that "buckshot"?

Remember Chamberlain trying to broker a deal with Hitler.

Most all Transport Ministers have historically been a few sandwiches short of a picnic at the best of time. A Transport Minister should be a loose cannon like Barnaby or even "the potplant Senator".

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 7th Oct 2013 at 21:59. Reason: Loose cannon got loose.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2013, 20:42
  #1556 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
But there's more.

I got this straight off the back of the Cairns truck – and verbatim I do quote it. "Entsch has backed off supporting Barrier, threatened law suite or some such". It's a disgrace how these scurrilous rumours get started; it's beyond me; but at least it makes for an interesting smoko discussion.....
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2013, 20:44
  #1557 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Pause for reflection?

Posted here as it seems pertinent to the Senate discussions:-

Pro Aviation – Paul Phelan. The latest article is an interesting, subtle piece, worth the few moments it takes to read. The question "what went wrong?" is 'germane' it also presents a refresher on one of Dick Smith's best efforts; perhaps this is why the iron ring got tighter. Say what you like about Dick, he does get accused of many things for which he was not responsible, but the Phelan article (for mine) highlights the well meaning intentions of the man, if nothing else. Two years in the Hall of Doom is worth cherry picking, even if you are dedicated anti Smith; at least he has actually been there and will stand behind the words. Admirable quality in any man.

If, as I did, you fail to read the introduction and launch straight into the 'guts'; it's a surprise when you see who wrote it and when. Anyway – for weel of for woe the piece is on Paul's website....
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2013, 21:38
  #1558 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 547

There's a very unsettling rumour doing the rounds, that despite the best efforts being made by various folk, ol' trusty Truss has done a deal with devil in the name of saving face. I do hope it's unfounded; there will not be too much face left to save if the unthinkable occurs.

I can't believe it, but it sort of makes sense; in a bizarre, twisted way......
This is from Pro Aviation Paul Phelan.

Truss demands action on Senate Committee’s ATSB/CASA recommendations

Paul Phelan ..... August 22, 2013

Shadow Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss has supported demands from Senator David Fawcett for immediate action on the recommendations of the Senate committee enquiry into CASA and ATSB’s handling of the Pel-Air ditching at Norfolk Island almost four years ago:

“Minister Anthony Albanese must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,” Said Mr. Truss.

“The recommendations, handed down by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading.

“The Senate Inquiry was established following the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB’s) report into the Norfolk Island incident almost three years after the event.

“The circumstances of the flight were both a disaster and a miracle. Despite mistakes being made by the pilot on the air ambulance trip from Apia (Samoa) to the Australian mainland, all four passengers and two crew were saved, the aircraft successfully ditching at night off the coast of Norfolk Island during bad weather.

“However, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was not the incident itself, but the alleged breakdown in investigation and reporting by the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

“Specifically, the report states:

‘The committee accepts that the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. Instead, the committee’s overriding objective from the outset was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence on the night and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public’.

“The report makes 26 recommendations to improve the conduct, regulation and procedures governing aviation incident investigations, which the Committee argues were not up to scratch.

“People have every right to expect world’s best practice when it comes to aviation safety, which includes comprehensive investigation and reporting of incidents. The community is entitled to have confidence in our aviation safety regulations and the conduct of our regulators.

“Similarly, it is vital that through comprehensive incident investigations and reporting, industry and regulators are accorded the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and improve systems to overcome existing weaknesses.

“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Albanese must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency.”

For the committee’s recommendations, see here
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 04:41
  #1559 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 68
Posts: 146
The Prince becomes a king

Crumbs how things have changed? Mr Truss unseats Albanese for the top job (to coin a phrase) and suddenly the games rules have changed? Now that Warren has what he wanted, his own toy set to play with, he is supportive of CASA? He has gone to ground, quietly supporting his aviation watchdog while firmly embedding himself as the new Minister for ass covering. Perhaps he will adopt Wingnuts policy of not reporting asylum seeking boat arrivals by implementing a new policy in which nothing aviation is allowed to be reported? No whispering about malfeasance in the hallway, no chitter chatter about anything to do with the governments beloved Qantas, no bedroom talk about aviation mischief, no innuendo or discussions in the tea room, not even sign language behind the pot plants is permitted Yes, that is how he will fix things. And if that fails well it is the gulag for all IOS (or perhaps 5 years in Opotiki).
Sad to see your Senators hard work go down the drain with all the pot plant nutrients.
Paragraph377 is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2013, 08:53
  #1560 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Is Kharon's post invisible or something??

Kharon paying Dick a compliment and everyone missed it, or maybe no one wants to recognise that Dick maybe eccentric and some of his ideas might be out there but he has always worn his heart on his sleeve...

A new approach to enforcement

And this wouldn't be a Sarcs post without a coupla quotes:
First, aviation safety depends upon there being a high level of trust between CASA and the industry. The Board is concerned that over recent years the level of trust has declined. Some parts of the industry believe that CASA’s current enforcement processes are arbitrary, inconsistent and unfair. Key organisations are advising their members not to speak to CASA about incidents or rule contraventions. There is much work to be done by both CASA and industry to repair the damage that has been done, but the Board believes that a new approach to enforcement is a good place to begin.
This is not a new problem and was clearly expressed by Sir Donald Anderson, the Director-General of the Department of Civil Aviation, in an open letter to the industry dated 16 October 1972. Sir Donald stated:
I have been concerned for some time by the number of incidents which reveal an element of reluctance on the part of pilots to seek help. It seems to me that it may be helpful if I, as Director-General, give some lead on the rapport which I believe needs to exist between pilots and others in the system if we are to avoid some of the mistakes that are evident. It is important that no barrier should exist to inhibit a readiness by all to give and take in the common interest of safety
If an atmosphere of reluctance or hostility develops to a point where there is discouragement from making full use of the services available, the end result could be disastrous in critical operational situations.
A similar concern was expressed 23 years later in the Plane Safe Report of the Parliamentary Committee chaired by Peter Morris MP. The Committee stated:
“The committee was dismayed by the denigration, venom and viciousness of the evidence. This attitude of mistrust if not mutual contempt between the participants places a heavy load on CASA in fulfilling its statutory function of promoting higher safety standards through education, training, advice and consultation.”
and two.. nah bugger it those interested enough can do their own bloody clicking

Last edited by Sarcs; 9th Oct 2013 at 20:22. Reason: Green MiLE I'm sure the feeling is mutual!
Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.