Merged: Senate Inquiry
Is that a piece of paper in your hand Mr Chamberlain?
I do like the potential of this bit:
...he has provided an opening, now the RAAA and AOPA and AAFI and the rest of us need to stick our feet into the door and wedge it open.
I do like the potential of this bit:
Outcomes
The report of the review will:
<snip>
• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;
<snip>
• examine the current processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (such as civil aviation orders) and make any proposals for improving these processes such that new regulations are best practice in safe operations for each relevant sector of the aviation industry;
• review the implementation of the current aviation safety regulatory reform programme and assess the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of regulatory changes, including cost impacts on industry;
• examine and make recommendations on options for improving future aviation safety regulatory reform having regard to international experience and stakeholder views, and the Government’s objective of reducing the cost of regulation to business;
• provide advice to Government on priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and
• provide advice to Government on options for improving oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including rights of review.
The report of the review will:
<snip>
• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;
<snip>
• examine the current processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (such as civil aviation orders) and make any proposals for improving these processes such that new regulations are best practice in safe operations for each relevant sector of the aviation industry;
• review the implementation of the current aviation safety regulatory reform programme and assess the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of regulatory changes, including cost impacts on industry;
• examine and make recommendations on options for improving future aviation safety regulatory reform having regard to international experience and stakeholder views, and the Government’s objective of reducing the cost of regulation to business;
• provide advice to Government on priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and
• provide advice to Government on options for improving oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including rights of review.
Finally they’re having a review.
Just another 7 months or so and all the problems in aviation regulation and accident investigation in Australia will, for the first time ever, be revealed by external experts and rectified by the government.
And then it will be aviation Nirvana.
Lucky I have the attention span of a goldfish. Otherwise I’d remember the last 3 or so times I’ve heard the same crap.
I’m saddened that many of the people who fly or fix aircraft in Australia appear to have the attention span of a goldfish.
Just another 7 months or so and all the problems in aviation regulation and accident investigation in Australia will, for the first time ever, be revealed by external experts and rectified by the government.
And then it will be aviation Nirvana.
Lucky I have the attention span of a goldfish. Otherwise I’d remember the last 3 or so times I’ve heard the same crap.
I’m saddened that many of the people who fly or fix aircraft in Australia appear to have the attention span of a goldfish.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life, as a goldfish.
A review next year eh, well what's to be done then?. Do we all sit and sweat it out over the keyboard, writing and editing; then rewriting. Bore our nearest and dearest witless asking them to read a masterpiece they can't comprehend. Then when it's finally done; wave a tearful, fond farewell to the paperwork as it disappears into the belly of the beast expecting it to make a difference, secretly knowing that within a 12 month it will be treated as every other submission made; redundant from birth.
Control over outcome is what's needed if this expensive inquiry is to get home, the opposition is entrenched, established, have all the levers and know how to pull them. There is little point taking off if you don't intend to arrive at your destination. To get there you can't just do the take off and expect the aircraft to arrive in one piece and land without some driving from you (metaphorically speaking).
Anything other than a determined, concerted, coordinated push for change, seen through to the end will be doomed to failure. Failure will mean creatures like Wodger delivering plagiarised speeches at the RAeS meetings, bald eagles writing more dodgy letters, trained attack dogs patrolling your hangar, see the inutile promoted, the dubious rewarded and your confidential REPCON a signed confession, this process will allow more first class junkets to exotic ports for long lazy holidays with your current squeeze.
You have your review, one shot – now then, what's to be done, lest history repeat itself (again).
Selah.
Control over outcome is what's needed if this expensive inquiry is to get home, the opposition is entrenched, established, have all the levers and know how to pull them. There is little point taking off if you don't intend to arrive at your destination. To get there you can't just do the take off and expect the aircraft to arrive in one piece and land without some driving from you (metaphorically speaking).
Anything other than a determined, concerted, coordinated push for change, seen through to the end will be doomed to failure. Failure will mean creatures like Wodger delivering plagiarised speeches at the RAeS meetings, bald eagles writing more dodgy letters, trained attack dogs patrolling your hangar, see the inutile promoted, the dubious rewarded and your confidential REPCON a signed confession, this process will allow more first class junkets to exotic ports for long lazy holidays with your current squeeze.
You have your review, one shot – now then, what's to be done, lest history repeat itself (again).
Selah.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A short information broadcast.
I can hear the responses to Senate Estimates already and see the ball being kicked into the long grass - again.
The review could start with the last two inquiries and their submissions.
I can hear the responses to Senate Estimates already and see the ball being kicked into the long grass - again.
The review could start with the last two inquiries and their submissions.
"Bring out your dead...bring out your dead!"
Albo: "But..but..I'm not dead yet??"
Caution: Bucket required!
According to the former minister and Mayor for Marrickville Aviation Safety is still his highest priority and aviation is not a political football (my bold)!!
{Footnote:*Air crash investigation needs full throttle response , **
AVIATION SAFETY AT RISK UNDER GOVERNMENT BUDGET CUTS }
Hmm no mention of the no response to the AAI report but you've got to hand it to Albo he is a consumate professional pollie and he is definitely not dead..
The cynics amongst us will say this independent review is just another 'wet lettuce' attempt to placate the industry and that Truss doesn't have the cohunas to really take on the real issues but as HL said...
"...he has provided an opening, now the RAAA and AOPA and AAFI and the rest of us need to stick our feet into the door and wedge it open..."
There is also the small matter of the other 20 odd recommendations that apparently Truss has committed to still address, from PP's article 'Aviation regulation back under the microscope':
So Creamy get ready to don your diving gear mate..and mi..mi..Beaker maybe you can get your new found chums the TSB Canada to independently analyse the BB??
Addendum: Senator Fawcett Senate speech 14/11/13
..."Many of them are under significant pressure, whether that be through excessive regulation or through the application of regulation that makes life difficult for them. Significantly, we saw that earlier this year with the release of the report into the Pel-Air accident at Norfolk Island, where we saw a number of issues with the regulator and ATSB that need to be addressed.
So it is a vital part of our economy, and I am pleased to say that the coalition has been listening to industry both prior to and post the election. We have had a number of meetings with industry, ranging from the one-man workshops through to larger engineering firms, smaller flying operations and large corporate organisations, to understand the pressures on them and how we as a government can try to take some of those pressures off. In the aviation policy put forward by the coalition there are a number of points that go to this. Certainly the topic of this week has been a lot about the abolition of the carbon tax and its impact on aviation fuels and businesses—and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars of impact on the aviation sector here in Australia—but some of the other key points in the policy include looking at establishing a high-level external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia which closely maps one of the recommendations coming out of the Pel-Air report. There is support for regional aviation, including new and better targeted en-route rebates. There is also an increased focus on recognising the importance of airports in Australia. Not only do we have to focus on things like Sydney's second airport; but the government is also very aware of the fact that the airport infrastructure we have has its primary use as an airport. Whilst the commercialisation and leasing of some of the secondary airports has meant that there are non-commercial activities there, the key focus must remain on the aviation capability that that represents and the potential for that to grow to meet future demand in coming years. The government also has a priority on revitalising the general aviation sector through an action agenda and making sure that things like security measures, which can be an onerous imposition on airlines and airport operators, are in fact risk based and only to the extent necessary.
There are other aspects to the policy, but one of the key ones has been the review of regulation. I am pleased to report to the Senate that today the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Warren Truss MP, who has responsibility for aviation, announced the independent review of aviation. He announced the terms of reference and the expected outcomes as well as the panel.
I want to pick a few of the outcomes that this review seeks to achieve and to deliver to the sector. The review will examine and make recommendations as required on the aviation safety roles of CASA, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and other agencies. It will examine and make recommendations on the appointments process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and ATSB, again stemming back from some of the recommendations coming out of the Pel-Air report about making sure we have the right people with the right competence. That is task-specific competence. People may be very good and very competent, but for a particular task they need both qualifications and experience in that task to do the role.
It is also looking to review the implementation of the current aviation regulatory reform program, which has been going on an awful long time and has been creating much uncertainty in the sector. In South Australia, for example, as operators for the state government's emergency medical service contract look to bid for that new tender, they are uncertain which rules they need to bid for. If the state government is not going to allow for regulatory change as part of the contract, it makes it very difficult for a company to bid—not knowing the standards to which they have to provide aircraft, numbers of aircrew, rosters et cetera.
The review will also look at the cost impacts on industry. That is one of the most important points. The government is looking to make sure that the aviation industry is not just safe but sustainable—that it is a viable industry sector for the future of Australia. Importantly, the review will also provide options to government for improving the oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including the rights of review, because we do see cases—some running right now—where companies have been shut down and, months after that, are yet to have their opportunity in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to put their case as to why they believe that decision was unfair. So there is a requirement to make the application of regulation appropriate.
The government's whole focus on deregulation means that we have the regulation we need to be safe but that we make sure that it is quality, that it is informed by people who understand the industry so that it is best practice and, importantly, that its application not only maintains safety but also makes sure that, where there is an equal safety case but one has a more commercially viable application, that is the one that the regulator should be looking to implement so that the industry is sustainable....."
Caution: Bucket required!
According to the former minister and Mayor for Marrickville Aviation Safety is still his highest priority and aviation is not a political football (my bold)!!
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:03): Labor welcomes the minister's statement and the announcement of a further review into the regulation of aviation safety. As the minister said, this country has an enviable record of aviation safety, the result of governments of either political persuasion taking a nonpartisan approach to this issue, as is entirely appropriate. During the period in which the current minister was the shadow minister, when it came to safety and security issues they were dealt with in a manner above politics (*Truss Media Statement, **DF media statement), and I intend to adopt exactly the same approach. It is absolutely critical that safety not be an issue which becomes part of the political contest.
It is also the case that, when it comes to aviation safety, we can never be too cautious. Continuous improvement must always be our aim, and our pursuit of the best possible aviation safety framework must always be beyond politics. When I became the minister, I commissioned significant reform to the aviation sector through a properly planned green and white paper process. That was the first time that Australia had put in place a comprehensive plan for aviation that went to safety and security, regulatory issues, workforce-planning issues, the general aviation sector and international agreements, so it was a comprehensive plan, not for just a year or two; it was a comprehensive plan for decades ahead. (Note: The GWEP was another planned decade or two of bureaucratic and political obfuscation)
All the recommendations on safety and security were put in place by the government (ahh..bulldust!
). We had a process for a strategic plan, including accelerating the modernisation of Australian regulation (don't you mean accelerating towards a third world regulatory regime). I would hope that this review takes it to the next stage. We introduced a board of governance for CASA, chaired by Allan Hawke—a process that received the support of the parliament. In terms of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we improved its governance structures as well by having commissioners (well that's really working!) and by extending the ATSB's responsibilities to also look at rail and shipping, so that you had a comprehensive approach to transport safety issues.
I think this plan has got it right by looking forward and making sure that it looks at the strategic framework and the balance that must be there between appropriate safety, regulation and costs. The minister referred to that and I would agree with that. I would say this, though: there should be no compromise in terms of safety being the absolute priority—something I am sure that the minister agrees with.
I also welcome the appointment of David Forsyth to chair the review. I know David well. I appointed him to chair the board of Airservices Australia in 2008, a position he held with great distinction until last year. Under Mr Forsyth's leadership the board led a major program of investment in critical safety infrastructure, air traffic services and training of skilled personnel.
About $1 billion is being invested in upgrades for air services. We have seen new air traffic control towers. I have opened them not only in capital cities such as Adelaide but also in regional centres such as the Sunshine Coast and Broome. The air traffic control process is also being streamlined to achieve greater cooperation between defence systems and the civil aviation sector.
I am also pleased that the coalition has appointed overseas experts to this review because, in an industry that is by definition international, it is critical that we consider overseas experience.
In fact, just before the recent federal election, I welcomed the ATSB's decision to invite the Canadian Transportation Safety Bureau to undertake an independent review of the ATSB's investigation methodologies and processes. (won't hold my breath on that one
)
That review commenced in August. It aims to provide the ATSB with valuable insights about possible improvements in the conduct of investigations. It is due to report to the minister next year, and I look forward to discussing that process with him. I am pleased that Mr Forsyth will be joined in this new review by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the UK. Both men are indeed highly qualified.
In conclusion, the aviation sector injects some $7 billion into the Australian economy each year. Australia has an enviable record of aviation safety, but we should not be complacent at any time. We need to ensure that we keep our personnel appropriately trained and skilled and be prepared to provide proper resourcing.
In 2010, I was very proud that Labor announced an additional $90 million in funding over four years (apparently justified by Wodger's review) to provide CASA with long-term funding stability. That was not an easy process to get through our cabinet, but people recognised that this was a priority. I would say to the minister that it is important that the resourcing from government to these organisations in charge of safety and security also be kept up. This extra assistance that we provided has allowed the authority to better meet the demands of a growing and ever more complex domestic and international industry.
The proliferation of low-cost carriers, the huge growth of fly-in fly-out airline and helicopter services, and the emergence of unmanned aerial systems are just some of the big challenges facing aviation safety. Others include new aircraft types and the wider use of satellite based technologies. There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost. This balancing is best done by experts, not politicians.(MOA strikes again!!!)
I welcome the minister's acknowledgement today that Australia's safety performance is among the best in the world and that it is built on a strong regulatory system. The opposition will follow the review and carefully consider its recommendations when they come forth in May.
I say to the minister that I believe it would be appropriate that there be a confidential briefing given to the opposition before the release of the recommendations. I have committed to him, publicly as well as in private, to ensure that these issues continue to be held as those not the subject of political debate. As I say, I pledge cooperation with him on this matter and give credit to him for the way in which he dealt with difficult issues such as the introduction of body scanners here in Australia, which was introduced without political rancour and with bipartisan support.
It is also the case that, when it comes to aviation safety, we can never be too cautious. Continuous improvement must always be our aim, and our pursuit of the best possible aviation safety framework must always be beyond politics. When I became the minister, I commissioned significant reform to the aviation sector through a properly planned green and white paper process. That was the first time that Australia had put in place a comprehensive plan for aviation that went to safety and security, regulatory issues, workforce-planning issues, the general aviation sector and international agreements, so it was a comprehensive plan, not for just a year or two; it was a comprehensive plan for decades ahead. (Note: The GWEP was another planned decade or two of bureaucratic and political obfuscation)
All the recommendations on safety and security were put in place by the government (ahh..bulldust!
). We had a process for a strategic plan, including accelerating the modernisation of Australian regulation (don't you mean accelerating towards a third world regulatory regime). I would hope that this review takes it to the next stage. We introduced a board of governance for CASA, chaired by Allan Hawke—a process that received the support of the parliament. In terms of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we improved its governance structures as well by having commissioners (well that's really working!) and by extending the ATSB's responsibilities to also look at rail and shipping, so that you had a comprehensive approach to transport safety issues. I think this plan has got it right by looking forward and making sure that it looks at the strategic framework and the balance that must be there between appropriate safety, regulation and costs. The minister referred to that and I would agree with that. I would say this, though: there should be no compromise in terms of safety being the absolute priority—something I am sure that the minister agrees with
. I also welcome the appointment of David Forsyth to chair the review. I know David well. I appointed him to chair the board of Airservices Australia in 2008, a position he held with great distinction until last year. Under Mr Forsyth's leadership the board led a major program of investment in critical safety infrastructure, air traffic services and training of skilled personnel.
About $1 billion is being invested in upgrades for air services. We have seen new air traffic control towers. I have opened them not only in capital cities such as Adelaide but also in regional centres such as the Sunshine Coast and Broome. The air traffic control process is also being streamlined to achieve greater cooperation between defence systems and the civil aviation sector.
I am also pleased that the coalition has appointed overseas experts to this review because, in an industry that is by definition international, it is critical that we consider overseas experience.
In fact, just before the recent federal election, I welcomed the ATSB's decision to invite the Canadian Transportation Safety Bureau to undertake an independent review of the ATSB's investigation methodologies and processes. (won't hold my breath on that one
)That review commenced in August. It aims to provide the ATSB with valuable insights about possible improvements in the conduct of investigations. It is due to report to the minister next year, and I look forward to discussing that process with him. I am pleased that Mr Forsyth will be joined in this new review by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the UK. Both men are indeed highly qualified.
In conclusion, the aviation sector injects some $7 billion into the Australian economy each year. Australia has an enviable record of aviation safety, but we should not be complacent at any time. We need to ensure that we keep our personnel appropriately trained and skilled and be prepared to provide proper resourcing.
In 2010, I was very proud that Labor announced an additional $90 million in funding over four years (apparently justified by Wodger's review
) to provide CASA with long-term funding stability. That was not an easy process to get through our cabinet, but people recognised that this was a priority. I would say to the minister that it is important that the resourcing from government to these organisations in charge of safety and security also be kept up. This extra assistance that we provided has allowed the authority to better meet the demands of a growing and ever more complex domestic and international industry.The proliferation of low-cost carriers, the huge growth of fly-in fly-out airline and helicopter services, and the emergence of unmanned aerial systems are just some of the big challenges facing aviation safety. Others include new aircraft types and the wider use of satellite based technologies. There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost. This balancing is best done by experts, not politicians.(MOA strikes again!!!)
I welcome the minister's acknowledgement today that Australia's safety performance is among the best in the world and that it is built on a strong regulatory system. The opposition will follow the review and carefully consider its recommendations when they come forth in May.
I say to the minister that I believe it would be appropriate that there be a confidential briefing given to the opposition before the release of the recommendations. I have committed to him, publicly as well as in private, to ensure that these issues continue to be held as those not the subject of political debate. As I say, I pledge cooperation with him on this matter and give credit to him for the way in which he dealt with difficult issues such as the introduction of body scanners here in Australia, which was introduced without political rancour and with bipartisan support.
AVIATION SAFETY AT RISK UNDER GOVERNMENT BUDGET CUTS }
Hmm no mention of the no response to the AAI report but you've got to hand it to Albo he is a consumate professional pollie and he is definitely not dead..
The cynics amongst us will say this independent review is just another 'wet lettuce' attempt to placate the industry and that Truss doesn't have the cohunas to really take on the real issues but as HL said...
"...he has provided an opening, now the RAAA and AOPA and AAFI and the rest of us need to stick our feet into the door and wedge it open..."
There is also the small matter of the other 20 odd recommendations that apparently Truss has committed to still address, from PP's article 'Aviation regulation back under the microscope':
Earlier this year a Senate report into Aviation Accident Investigations made 26 recommendations, many of them time-critical, on issues directly related to the Pel-Air enquiry, including consideration of executive-level changes, a reopening of the ATSB/CASA enquiry, and immediate recovery of the aircraft’s flight data and cockpit voice recorders, but these have been ignored until now.
Mr Truss’s office however says matters relating to that report will not be rolled into the enquiry announced today, but will be treated as a separate issue and dealt with before the report is delivered.
Mr Truss’s office however says matters relating to that report will not be rolled into the enquiry announced today, but will be treated as a separate issue and dealt with before the report is delivered.
Addendum: Senator Fawcett Senate speech 14/11/13
..."Many of them are under significant pressure, whether that be through excessive regulation or through the application of regulation that makes life difficult for them. Significantly, we saw that earlier this year with the release of the report into the Pel-Air accident at Norfolk Island, where we saw a number of issues with the regulator and ATSB that need to be addressed.
So it is a vital part of our economy, and I am pleased to say that the coalition has been listening to industry both prior to and post the election. We have had a number of meetings with industry, ranging from the one-man workshops through to larger engineering firms, smaller flying operations and large corporate organisations, to understand the pressures on them and how we as a government can try to take some of those pressures off. In the aviation policy put forward by the coalition there are a number of points that go to this. Certainly the topic of this week has been a lot about the abolition of the carbon tax and its impact on aviation fuels and businesses—and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars of impact on the aviation sector here in Australia—but some of the other key points in the policy include looking at establishing a high-level external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia which closely maps one of the recommendations coming out of the Pel-Air report. There is support for regional aviation, including new and better targeted en-route rebates. There is also an increased focus on recognising the importance of airports in Australia. Not only do we have to focus on things like Sydney's second airport; but the government is also very aware of the fact that the airport infrastructure we have has its primary use as an airport. Whilst the commercialisation and leasing of some of the secondary airports has meant that there are non-commercial activities there, the key focus must remain on the aviation capability that that represents and the potential for that to grow to meet future demand in coming years. The government also has a priority on revitalising the general aviation sector through an action agenda and making sure that things like security measures, which can be an onerous imposition on airlines and airport operators, are in fact risk based and only to the extent necessary.
There are other aspects to the policy, but one of the key ones has been the review of regulation. I am pleased to report to the Senate that today the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Warren Truss MP, who has responsibility for aviation, announced the independent review of aviation. He announced the terms of reference and the expected outcomes as well as the panel.
I want to pick a few of the outcomes that this review seeks to achieve and to deliver to the sector. The review will examine and make recommendations as required on the aviation safety roles of CASA, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and other agencies. It will examine and make recommendations on the appointments process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and ATSB, again stemming back from some of the recommendations coming out of the Pel-Air report about making sure we have the right people with the right competence. That is task-specific competence. People may be very good and very competent, but for a particular task they need both qualifications and experience in that task to do the role.
It is also looking to review the implementation of the current aviation regulatory reform program, which has been going on an awful long time and has been creating much uncertainty in the sector. In South Australia, for example, as operators for the state government's emergency medical service contract look to bid for that new tender, they are uncertain which rules they need to bid for. If the state government is not going to allow for regulatory change as part of the contract, it makes it very difficult for a company to bid—not knowing the standards to which they have to provide aircraft, numbers of aircrew, rosters et cetera.
The review will also look at the cost impacts on industry. That is one of the most important points. The government is looking to make sure that the aviation industry is not just safe but sustainable—that it is a viable industry sector for the future of Australia. Importantly, the review will also provide options to government for improving the oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including the rights of review, because we do see cases—some running right now—where companies have been shut down and, months after that, are yet to have their opportunity in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to put their case as to why they believe that decision was unfair. So there is a requirement to make the application of regulation appropriate.
The government's whole focus on deregulation means that we have the regulation we need to be safe but that we make sure that it is quality, that it is informed by people who understand the industry so that it is best practice and, importantly, that its application not only maintains safety but also makes sure that, where there is an equal safety case but one has a more commercially viable application, that is the one that the regulator should be looking to implement so that the industry is sustainable....."
Last edited by Sarcs; 15th Nov 2013 at 00:19.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be accurate to say that you can do "anything" in the name of "safety".
Therefor with their track record of abusing that word, it should be removed from the CASA title and their stated objectives.
The title should represent their charter and Civil Aviation Authority would seem appropriate unless they add in the job description, "promote and enhance the Industry and Aviation Safety".
Of note with Albo is his willingness to step up to the plate after being duded by his own kind and now in opposition. This could work for the industry if one were to harness his energy to keep the other lot honest. He also has a past reputation of sorts to protect. It's a voice in the Parliament but should be used cautiously so as not to offend others with Industry pragmatism.
Therefor with their track record of abusing that word, it should be removed from the CASA title and their stated objectives.
The title should represent their charter and Civil Aviation Authority would seem appropriate unless they add in the job description, "promote and enhance the Industry and Aviation Safety".
Of note with Albo is his willingness to step up to the plate after being duded by his own kind and now in opposition. This could work for the industry if one were to harness his energy to keep the other lot honest. He also has a past reputation of sorts to protect. It's a voice in the Parliament but should be used cautiously so as not to offend others with Industry pragmatism.
If only there were people in left in government with the wit, wisdom and courage to actually govern.
Alas, it’s just tweedle dumb swapping sides with tweedle dumber. All the people who avoided doing anything in government are now calling for action, from the luxury of opposition. All of the people who called for action, from the luxury of opposition, are now avoiding doing anything in government.
I often wonder whether, deep down, the likes of Senators Fawcett, Nash and Heffernan feel a little unclean. Like most politicians, as individuals they seem to be very intelligent, hard-working and honest. They obviously have a very deep insight into what’s wrong and what needs to be done to fix it. But the overriding obligation to the party and gaining and maintaining incumbency seems to put paid to all of that.
Must feel kinda weird going to all that effort to get into government to avoid governing.
Alas, it’s just tweedle dumb swapping sides with tweedle dumber. All the people who avoided doing anything in government are now calling for action, from the luxury of opposition. All of the people who called for action, from the luxury of opposition, are now avoiding doing anything in government.
I often wonder whether, deep down, the likes of Senators Fawcett, Nash and Heffernan feel a little unclean. Like most politicians, as individuals they seem to be very intelligent, hard-working and honest. They obviously have a very deep insight into what’s wrong and what needs to be done to fix it. But the overriding obligation to the party and gaining and maintaining incumbency seems to put paid to all of that.
Must feel kinda weird going to all that effort to get into government to avoid governing.
Split Enz got it wrong, History always repeats.
I was only out by a month when I predicted that the earliest the new government would do anything about the Senate Report would be June 2014. This report will be due in May. So that would mean that any recommendations coming from it would be acted on and legislated or implemented by March 2015 at the earliest.
All the best Kharon with your submissions. I'm not sure why a review is required or why more submissions are required as the Senate has a compactus full. If significant and structural change emerges from this review not only will I be pleasantly surprised but I will go to parliament and extend to the Rt Hon Mr Truss a laurel and hardy handshake as he will be the first M.P. to actually make a step forward rather than endlessly talking about reforming aviation in this country.
If, as my cynicism suspects, it will result in frippery around the edges and a greater budget for CASA it will just be a resumption of BAU.
I'll check in again in May to see how the report is received. The 82 odd pages of this thread will provide an indication of how the discussion will progress over the next 6 1/2 months.
You have your review, one shot – now then, what's to be done, lest history repeat itself (again).
as he will be the first M.P. to actually make a step forward rather than endlessly talking about reforming aviation in this country.If, as my cynicism suspects, it will result in frippery around the edges and a greater budget for CASA it will just be a resumption of BAU.
I'll check in again in May to see how the report is received. The 82 odd pages of this thread will provide an indication of how the discussion will progress over the next 6 1/2 months.
United we conquer..divided we fall!
To read a Creamy or LL post is like going to the wake while your mate is still propped up in bed desperately trying to beat the arrival of the grim reaper or barter a better fare from the ferryman...
Perhaps a read of sprocket's post could help stop the rest of us bods from contemplating topping ourselves cause it's all too bloody hard!!
Who represents GA to government: post #71 (top post that!)
Meanwhile Monday's entertainment for those die hards amongst us:
Public Hearings: Supplementary Budget Estimates for 2013-14
Monday 18 November 2013
Perhaps a read of sprocket's post could help stop the rest of us bods from contemplating topping ourselves cause it's all too bloody hard!!
Who represents GA to government: post #71 (top post that!
)Meanwhile Monday's entertainment for those die hards amongst us:
Public Hearings: Supplementary Budget Estimates for 2013-14
Monday 18 November 2013
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's sad to see a lot of work and thought put up to waste by those who tend to do nothing but complain and predict negative outcomes.
While we all may harbor doubts about outcomes, at least something is happening, and more should be said about issues that will possibly have a potential to frustrate the outcome. If the terms of reference, the makeup of decision makers, or the time factors that may negate one inquiry from consideration with another can be put to the sword before any pre determined outcome can happen, it would be better to attack those with submissions to the Minister now rather than just say "I told you so" later when it's all over. Or perhaps that's the agenda.
Continue Sarcs, you have my attention.
Edit to add: More pragmatic thought should be directed toward Albanese. From a political aspect he is now cultivating his love to hate Tories and this can be harnessed. Probably not not wise to use people who have the ears of Xenaphon, Fawcett and others now on side.
While we all may harbor doubts about outcomes, at least something is happening, and more should be said about issues that will possibly have a potential to frustrate the outcome. If the terms of reference, the makeup of decision makers, or the time factors that may negate one inquiry from consideration with another can be put to the sword before any pre determined outcome can happen, it would be better to attack those with submissions to the Minister now rather than just say "I told you so" later when it's all over. Or perhaps that's the agenda.
Continue Sarcs, you have my attention.
Edit to add: More pragmatic thought should be directed toward Albanese. From a political aspect he is now cultivating his love to hate Tories and this can be harnessed. Probably not not wise to use people who have the ears of Xenaphon, Fawcett and others now on side.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 16th Nov 2013 at 22:56. Reason: And onother thing.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mrdak [Mrdac] papers
The following is from the Monday Senate estimates, which gives the answer we need.
Albo had the advice from casa and atsb, via Mrdak on 5th June 2013.
Parliament was sitting that week and not prorogued until 5th August 2013
Why did Albo:
From Hansard for 18th November 2013
Well Albo certainly had the report.
Albo had the advice from casa and atsb, via Mrdak on 5th June 2013.
Parliament was sitting that week and not prorogued until 5th August 2013
Why did Albo:
- Not answer and report to the Parliament?
- Run away from the Prime TV reporter when asked about this?
From Hansard for 18th November 2013
Senator LINES: I realise that you cannot necessarily provide us with details about briefings and submissions to ministers but I am interested in what has been provided to ministers.
Mr Mrdak: The department provides an extensive range of advice on all matters covered by portfolio responsibilities.
CHAIR: Including two-dollar cockups by the previous government, I presume.
Mr Mrdak: We do provide extensive advice on all portfolio matters, and clearly that has been occurring since the swearing in of ministers.
Senator LINES: How many briefings and submissions have you made?
Mr Mrdak: I would have to take that on notice. It would be a rather large number, I would imagine.
Senator LINES: I would want to know how many were information briefs and how many were decision briefs.
Mr Mrdak: We provide briefs to ministers which require action in terms of decisions. I can take on notice how many briefs have been provided.
Senator FAWCETT: The last time we met in estimates, you were anticipating giving a brief to former minister Albanese about the Senate report into air accident investigations. You anticipated giving that to him, I think, within 10 days of the date of the estimates.
Could you confirm what date the department did provide that brief for action to the minister?
Mr Mrdak: Following our conversation at the 29 May estimates, I provided advice to the minister on 5 June 2013.
Senator FAWCETT: Did that have recommendations for a response to the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak: It provided advice on the Senate report, including options for handling of the Senate inquiry report, yes.
Senator FAWCETT: Did it flag the fact that there were safety implications raised in the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak: The department provides an extensive range of advice on all matters covered by portfolio responsibilities.
CHAIR: Including two-dollar cockups by the previous government, I presume.
Mr Mrdak: We do provide extensive advice on all portfolio matters, and clearly that has been occurring since the swearing in of ministers.
Senator LINES: How many briefings and submissions have you made?
Mr Mrdak: I would have to take that on notice. It would be a rather large number, I would imagine.
Senator LINES: I would want to know how many were information briefs and how many were decision briefs.
Mr Mrdak: We provide briefs to ministers which require action in terms of decisions. I can take on notice how many briefs have been provided.
Senator FAWCETT: The last time we met in estimates, you were anticipating giving a brief to former minister Albanese about the Senate report into air accident investigations. You anticipated giving that to him, I think, within 10 days of the date of the estimates.
Could you confirm what date the department did provide that brief for action to the minister?
Mr Mrdak: Following our conversation at the 29 May estimates, I provided advice to the minister on 5 June 2013.
Senator FAWCETT: Did that have recommendations for a response to the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak: It provided advice on the Senate report, including options for handling of the Senate inquiry report, yes.
Senator FAWCETT: Did it flag the fact that there were safety implications raised in the Senate report?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a three game match:
Estimates Hansard – Start P.63-(PDF) P.59 –(Hansard). (All bolding mine)
GAME -
SET point - Wait for it, here comes the cavalry:-
MATCH -
Magnanimous in victory, the opponent is allowed to limp back to the changing rooms, to lick the wounds and salvage any remaining scraps of self respect.
This where a picture could say a thousand words, pregnant moment? oh yes....
Ever have one of those moments, when you know, you'd only opened your mouth to change feet. MM' s face was a study, he may be hard to beat in a poker game, but my MaMa could have won that pot – classic.
Is it just me or was that a master class in how to set traps for the unheeding. The cavalry may have saved an entire rout, but it had to cough up the requested information. Does the Murky, Machiavellian team have a bus timetable?, it would save them time, standing about waiting for one.
And solid gold from Heff to wrap it up.
.
GAME -
Mr McCormick: We provided technical input to the department which formulated the responses to the minister.
Mr McCormick: There were 22 recommendations from memory and then there were some additional comments from yourself
Mr McCormick: As I say we do not formulate those recommendations
Mr McCormick: From our point of view we were not dismissing anything out of hand. All we can give is our opinion of what we think of the recommendations.
Mr McCormick: I am trying to answer your question, but I personally do not know what we said as far as the answers go, compared to what answers came out there. I am not comparing both. Our concern was what the recommendation meant to us. We did not form a view for the government or whether the government would accept or reject it. That was not our role.
Mr McCormick: I do not know if anyone was more actively involved in this than myself, but we would say what that recommendation meant as to where we are today and its effect on us. But whether it is accepted or rejected is not something we recommend.
Mr McCormick: Making a recommendation to accept or reject a recommendation.
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps I should ask the minister or the secretary this. What difficulty would there be in CASA providing material to the department about the Senate inquiry on Pel Air.
Mr McCormick: Again, Senator, I will have to take that on notice. I am not sure what the protocols are around that.
SET point - Wait for it, here comes the cavalry:-
Mr Mrdak: The minister is currently finalising his consideration of a response to the Senate inquiry. I will take that on notice. I do not think there is an issue in principle but I would need to take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator XENOPHON: Let us not talk at cross purposes here. I am saying that CASA gave a considered response presumably to the Senate inquiry, to the minister, to consider. That itself would not be a draft, it would be a document from CASA to the department. What harm would there be for that document eventually seeing the light of day?
Mr Mrdak: Again, without recalling the exact details of the document, I do not have an issue in principle, but I need to take it on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: At the end of the day you would not have an issue in principle with that being released, would you, Mr McCormick?
Mr McCormick: Again, I will take it on notice. I personally do not, but I am not sure what the protocols are. Perhaps Dr Aleck might have something to say.
Dr Aleck: I will concur with what has gone before and to add that CASA made a number of submissions to that inquiry. To the extent that the recommendations dealt with the same issues that were covered by the submissions I suspect there would be some alignment with our submissions.
MATCH -
CHAIR: I am advised that there is no procedural reason, in reference to your earlier questions, for the advice that CASA gave the department to be not tabled. It is something where there is no procedural blockage.
Magnanimous in victory, the opponent is allowed to limp back to the changing rooms, to lick the wounds and salvage any remaining scraps of self respect.
Senator XENOPHON: If we can go back to that, Mr McCormick, to the department and to the minister, I formally request that you table a copy of CASA's response to the department in respect of the Senate report of the inquiry into aviation accident investigations handed in May 2013.
Mr McCormick: I acknowledge your request, Senator, and we will take it on notice and check the legal advice. If it concurs with what we have heard today then we certainly will provide it.
Senator XENOPHON: What has legal advice got to do with it?
Mr McCormick: We are merely checking to make sure that that is the case.
Ever have one of those moments, when you know, you'd only opened your mouth to change feet. MM' s face was a study, he may be hard to beat in a poker game, but my MaMa could have won that pot – classic.
Senator XENOPHON: Are you suggesting that a request from a committee of the Senate for a document is something that could be fettered by legal advice?
And solid gold from Heff to wrap it up.
CHAIR: I regret to inform the committee that that is the end of CASA. Questions, that is—I was just corrected by the secretary. It is not the end of CASA, just the end of them being here. I now call ATSB....
Last edited by Kharon; 20th Nov 2013 at 02:34. Reason: Sarcs - long posts blong u pella - hate them. Curse on the formatting
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chair - I call the ATSB.
Poor old Beaker, hardly got comfy and the seat warmed up when:-
Estimates Hansard – P.71 PDF - P. 67 Hansard.(My bold)
Here is where the pictures were brilliant – Now, I don't know whether the poor man had wind, or if the bloke alongside has just let rip. But I got a top screen shot of his face, (I regret NFP here). The print, now a glossy, framed 8" x 10" is to be hanged (yes) behind the bar of the BRB favourite watering hole; priceless. Last evening a small but elegant group gathered to witness Beaker being hanged in effigy; FWIW he had a good send off and if that mans ears were not burning, it's not our fault.
One item of business was to examine a couple or three rumours floating about the place:-
Rumour 1 : Truss, under advice from MM will extend the Mc Comick tenure.
Supporting : There really is no one in CASA who could be trusted to fill the role. The review is not scheduled to report until May. The ToR call for a review of the appointment process and criteria applicable to key roles in the ATSB and CASA. In order to provide some certainty the job (s) can be advertised immediately on vacancy. Truss, probably on Mrdak's advice, would be contemplating extending the contract until at least the review panel completes its work. Perhaps the government's consideration and response to the senate inquiry will have some bearing, particularly if the AFP find that CASA has a case to answer in respect of the potential breach of the TSI Act.
Rumour 2 : The current minister saying the review won’t be working over individual complaints or investigating 'cold cases' and is actively working to prevent 'looking back', i.e. Pel Air is a cold case, historical value only, academic and; on the public record.
Supporting : The words published in Hansard, the passage of play between Sinodinos and the Senators sort of highlights what the minister wants and the Senators determination not to have Pel Air swept under the rug.
Against: Any solution that doesn’t recognise endemic moral corruption won’t be a credible solution. If the review won’t recognise that symptom then it doesn’t recognise that what was going on yesterday is exactly what’s going on today. This takes us to what will be going on tomorrow, unless there’s a re-casting of roles and players with numerous retirements.
Having concluded the debate, a last order was taken and a minute of silent contemplation of the Beaker effigy was attempted, alas this degenerated into ribald hilarity. The BRB executive committee proposed there and then that another, similar picture could be hanged alongside. But the Nays had it, remarkable really; happy to raise the odd glass to Beaker but the idea of 'tuther fellah's picture parked on the pub wall could not even raise a smile.
Estimates Hansard – P.71 PDF - P. 67 Hansard.(My bold)
Senator FAWCETT: You recently released a report about the crash of the ABC helicopter, which I commend you for. I am a little disturbed when I look back at the report about the helicopter that crashed off the Queensland coast some years ago—basically it was a controlled flight into water, with the understanding that there had been disorientation. Very similar recommendations came out of that in terms of changing the regulations to look at either augmentation of stability systems or two crew, et cetera. What gives you confidence that we will see action in response to this latest report when clearly nothing occurred in response to your last report?
One item of business was to examine a couple or three rumours floating about the place:-
Rumour 1 : Truss, under advice from MM will extend the Mc Comick tenure.
Supporting : There really is no one in CASA who could be trusted to fill the role. The review is not scheduled to report until May. The ToR call for a review of the appointment process and criteria applicable to key roles in the ATSB and CASA. In order to provide some certainty the job (s) can be advertised immediately on vacancy. Truss, probably on Mrdak's advice, would be contemplating extending the contract until at least the review panel completes its work. Perhaps the government's consideration and response to the senate inquiry will have some bearing, particularly if the AFP find that CASA has a case to answer in respect of the potential breach of the TSI Act.
Rumour 2 : The current minister saying the review won’t be working over individual complaints or investigating 'cold cases' and is actively working to prevent 'looking back', i.e. Pel Air is a cold case, historical value only, academic and; on the public record.
Supporting : The words published in Hansard, the passage of play between Sinodinos and the Senators sort of highlights what the minister wants and the Senators determination not to have Pel Air swept under the rug.
Against: Any solution that doesn’t recognise endemic moral corruption won’t be a credible solution. If the review won’t recognise that symptom then it doesn’t recognise that what was going on yesterday is exactly what’s going on today. This takes us to what will be going on tomorrow, unless there’s a re-casting of roles and players with numerous retirements.
Having concluded the debate, a last order was taken and a minute of silent contemplation of the Beaker effigy was attempted, alas this degenerated into ribald hilarity. The BRB executive committee proposed there and then that another, similar picture could be hanged alongside. But the Nays had it, remarkable really; happy to raise the odd glass to Beaker but the idea of 'tuther fellah's picture parked on the pub wall could not even raise a smile.
Welcome back Hoody albeit in a different role!
Slight change of tack and one for those controllers amongst us...
Note: It is also good to see the Hooded one back, although in a different guernsey:
And for more on the ASA inquisitorial visit here..: Airservices Australia
Note: It is also good to see the Hooded one back, although in a different guernsey:
CHAIR: While Senator Xenophon is preparing himself, I was going to ask about the arrangement between us and New Zealand—
Senator XENOPHON: Please do.
CHAIR: and Norfolk Island or wherever it was. But someone has an opening statement.
Ms Staib : Yes, I do. It is very brief.
CHAIR: Righto; go.
Ms Staib : I have just completed just over 12 months in my role as Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia. Of course, safety continues to be a No. 1 priority and a key focus of my leadership. Airservices has a key focus on safety training, with disciplined, focused education and training for our people, and it is fundamental to how we maintain our world-leading safety record and reputation.
As you know, a loss of separation is one indicator of safety performance and they, of themselves, do not automatically signify a risk-bearing event. We have a very low rate of loss of separation compared to the rest of the world—substantially lower than Germany, the UK and the USA. But there is never a moment when we are satisfied with a loss of separation, and we are always striving for continuous improvement.
On that note, I just want to discuss one event in particular that received significant media attention. On 20 September of this year, just after noon, a loss of separation incident occurred approximately 20 miles west of Adelaide. Two Qantas aircraft were flying in opposite directions: Qantas flight 581 was westbound at flight level 380, and Qantas flight 576 was eastbound at flight level 390. The incident occurred in en-route airspace and involved one aircraft requesting, and being given clearance, to climb through the altitude of the other aircraft without an appropriate separation standard being in place.
The traffic scenario generated an Airservices short-term conflict alert and also a cockpit-generated traffic conflict alert resolution advisory, or a TCAS, was activated. Our alert looks ahead 60 seconds, while the TCAS looks ahead 30 nautical miles or two minutes at cruise speed for oncoming traffic. The controller took immediate action to descend the climbing aircraft back to a separated altitude. The other aircraft responded to the TCAS resolution by climbing. The estimate at the closest point of proximity was 700 feet vertically and 1.6 nautical miles laterally.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Qantas airline safety were immediately notified and kept informed. Our internal investigation of this event is well advanced, and ATSB have advised that they will complete their investigation by September 2014.
I think this demonstrates that, when we have humans in a very complex system, on the odd occasion human error could occur.
Senator STERLE: It wouldn't happen in parliament!
CHAIR: Come on.
Senator STERLE: Sorry; I was thinking aloud.
Ms Staib : In response to this incident I have established a task force to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, air space design, training and human performance. The task force is led by an air traffic controller who is reporting directly to me.
Aviation growth continues to be the most significant strategic challenges faced by Airservices Australia. We are now seeing the Sydney-to-Melbourne route listed as the second busiest air corridor in the world in terms of aircraft movements. Sydney to Brisbane has now been listed as the 12th busiest in the world. On 11 October this year we achieved 1,004 movements in Sydney in a day. This was the busiest day since the 2000 Olympics.
I wanted to touch very briefly on the OneSKY Australia project. That is the replacement of the national air traffic control system which we are carrying out jointly with Defence, with Airservices being the lead procurement agency. The tenders have closed and we have commenced evaluation of those tenders.
CHAIR: This was to be a brief opening statement.
Ms Staib : I just want to say one thing about our finance and then I will conclude. I am pleased to report that our revenues for the financial year 2012-13 grew by 6.4 per cent to $955 million. Our operating profit after tax was $63.1 million, and we delivered in the last financial year a dividend to government of $21 million. With that, I will conclude.
CHAIR: That was not too bad. When the alerts went off, did both climb or did one go down and one go up?
Ms Staib : One descended, at the instruction of the air traffic controller; the other ascended in response to the traffic alert.
Senator EDWARDS: Did you say the alert went off in the plane?
Ms Staib : There are two alerts. One goes off in our system, the air services system, in front of the air traffic controller. There is another alert in the—
CHAIR: So the air traffic controller gave permission? It was turbulent weather or something, was it?
Ms Staib : No. Our study showed that the weather was not a factor.
CHAIR: So why did he get permission to go down?
Ms Staib : Can you say that again, please?
CHAIR: The air traffic controller gave one plane permission to go up or go down, which put them into—
Ms Staib : What happened was that the pilot requested to ascend.
CHAIR: For any good reason?
Ms Staib : I do not know.
CHAIR: I have one final question. Was the guy who was doing the piloting in the right seat or the left seat?
Ms Staib : I do not know.
CHAIR: Those are all the things you will find out, though?
Mr Hood : If I could answer, the ATSB is investigating this particular incident. So all of those factors in relation to what happened in the cockpit will come out in that.
Senator XENOPHON: Please do.
CHAIR: and Norfolk Island or wherever it was. But someone has an opening statement.
Ms Staib : Yes, I do. It is very brief.
CHAIR: Righto; go.
Ms Staib : I have just completed just over 12 months in my role as Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia. Of course, safety continues to be a No. 1 priority and a key focus of my leadership. Airservices has a key focus on safety training, with disciplined, focused education and training for our people, and it is fundamental to how we maintain our world-leading safety record and reputation.
As you know, a loss of separation is one indicator of safety performance and they, of themselves, do not automatically signify a risk-bearing event. We have a very low rate of loss of separation compared to the rest of the world—substantially lower than Germany, the UK and the USA. But there is never a moment when we are satisfied with a loss of separation, and we are always striving for continuous improvement.
On that note, I just want to discuss one event in particular that received significant media attention. On 20 September of this year, just after noon, a loss of separation incident occurred approximately 20 miles west of Adelaide. Two Qantas aircraft were flying in opposite directions: Qantas flight 581 was westbound at flight level 380, and Qantas flight 576 was eastbound at flight level 390. The incident occurred in en-route airspace and involved one aircraft requesting, and being given clearance, to climb through the altitude of the other aircraft without an appropriate separation standard being in place.
The traffic scenario generated an Airservices short-term conflict alert and also a cockpit-generated traffic conflict alert resolution advisory, or a TCAS, was activated. Our alert looks ahead 60 seconds, while the TCAS looks ahead 30 nautical miles or two minutes at cruise speed for oncoming traffic. The controller took immediate action to descend the climbing aircraft back to a separated altitude. The other aircraft responded to the TCAS resolution by climbing. The estimate at the closest point of proximity was 700 feet vertically and 1.6 nautical miles laterally.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Qantas airline safety were immediately notified and kept informed. Our internal investigation of this event is well advanced, and ATSB have advised that they will complete their investigation by September 2014.
I think this demonstrates that, when we have humans in a very complex system, on the odd occasion human error could occur.
Senator STERLE: It wouldn't happen in parliament!
CHAIR: Come on.
Senator STERLE: Sorry; I was thinking aloud.
Ms Staib : In response to this incident I have established a task force to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, air space design, training and human performance. The task force is led by an air traffic controller who is reporting directly to me.
Aviation growth continues to be the most significant strategic challenges faced by Airservices Australia. We are now seeing the Sydney-to-Melbourne route listed as the second busiest air corridor in the world in terms of aircraft movements. Sydney to Brisbane has now been listed as the 12th busiest in the world. On 11 October this year we achieved 1,004 movements in Sydney in a day. This was the busiest day since the 2000 Olympics.
I wanted to touch very briefly on the OneSKY Australia project. That is the replacement of the national air traffic control system which we are carrying out jointly with Defence, with Airservices being the lead procurement agency. The tenders have closed and we have commenced evaluation of those tenders.
CHAIR: This was to be a brief opening statement.
Ms Staib : I just want to say one thing about our finance and then I will conclude. I am pleased to report that our revenues for the financial year 2012-13 grew by 6.4 per cent to $955 million. Our operating profit after tax was $63.1 million, and we delivered in the last financial year a dividend to government of $21 million. With that, I will conclude.
CHAIR: That was not too bad. When the alerts went off, did both climb or did one go down and one go up?
Ms Staib : One descended, at the instruction of the air traffic controller; the other ascended in response to the traffic alert.
Senator EDWARDS: Did you say the alert went off in the plane?
Ms Staib : There are two alerts. One goes off in our system, the air services system, in front of the air traffic controller. There is another alert in the—
CHAIR: So the air traffic controller gave permission? It was turbulent weather or something, was it?
Ms Staib : No. Our study showed that the weather was not a factor.
CHAIR: So why did he get permission to go down?
Ms Staib : Can you say that again, please?
CHAIR: The air traffic controller gave one plane permission to go up or go down, which put them into—
Ms Staib : What happened was that the pilot requested to ascend.
CHAIR: For any good reason?
Ms Staib : I do not know.
CHAIR: I have one final question. Was the guy who was doing the piloting in the right seat or the left seat?
Ms Staib : I do not know.
CHAIR: Those are all the things you will find out, though?
Mr Hood : If I could answer, the ATSB is investigating this particular incident. So all of those factors in relation to what happened in the cockpit will come out in that.
: Airservices Australia
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSI – Acts of contrition.
Sarcs # 62- "hmm Minister perhaps a slight adjustment to the TSI Act could be warranted here??"
It's only when the prospect arises that thoughts of dodgy doings occur. We should, in a better world, be able to trust implicitly the integrity of the body charged with 'using' such powerful weapons, sadly appears the prospect that we cannot. The Enforcement protocols are the same, a two edged sword, but who monitors the application of those rules and ensures that they apply equally to both sides.
It's certainly not the ICC. (Anyway, the fair Elizabeth has gone to grapple with Customs and Excise). It's certainly not the "Board"; and the resident legal eagle has enough on his plate just cleaning up the mess, metaphorically putting out fires and burying the bodies (hell of a job). So then, just who can we rely on to ensure that when great powers are used, they are used transparently, fairly and in the best traditions of probity.
I know – back to my knitting, the breezes in the corridors of power are not the business of a humble ferryman. But I do expect to be busy shortly.
Staib/Hood proactive approach vs DAS/GWM indignate ozfuscation??
I'm sure their are many within the ranks of ASA (especially those on the coalface) that have reserved feelings about their CEO. Some of which is totally justified given the recent history of spotlighted workplace and executive/middle management issues.
However, outstanding issues aside, IMO it was totally refreshing to see the Staib front foot approach, ably supported by Hood, at last Monday's Senate Estimates hearing. Stark contrast to the arrogant, 'nothing to see here', defensive diatribe deployed by the Angry Man/GWM politburo..
In Ms Staib's opening statement (post #1648) she doesn't beat around the bush or get defensive about a very public interest topic (that the Senators were bound to have questioned ASA over anyway).
The chalk:
Instead Ms Staib draws attention to the significant safety incident, gives a full and frank summary, then gives assurances that ASA is treating the matter very seriously. Finally Ms Staib outlines a ASA MAP to proactively address the safety risk implications that fall within the ASA responsibilities in regards to this incident.
{Note: Detractors aside there is a lot to admire about the positive (proactive) management style that Ms Staib appears to be deploying...}
The cheese (mouldy Swiss variety):
Enter stage left ozfuscation Fort Fumble style and at the tailend of Senator Fawcett's questioning on the Barrier destruction:
And from Kharon's post and in context of the PelAir government reply:
Hmm..all about covering backsides and playing games with potentially damning information that might shine a light into some deep, dark crevasses in the FF warren..
On a final note and relevant to this post, it is good to see the MMSM, like the inestimable Ms Staib, are doing their job objectively (for a change) and reporting some of the real issues that matter to the aviation industry... Here SC gives credit where IMO credit is due :
However, outstanding issues aside, IMO it was totally refreshing to see the Staib front foot approach, ably supported by Hood, at last Monday's Senate Estimates hearing. Stark contrast to the arrogant, 'nothing to see here', defensive diatribe deployed by the Angry Man/GWM politburo..
In Ms Staib's opening statement (post #1648) she doesn't beat around the bush or get defensive about a very public interest topic (that the Senators were bound to have questioned ASA over anyway).
The chalk:
Instead Ms Staib draws attention to the significant safety incident, gives a full and frank summary, then gives assurances that ASA is treating the matter very seriously. Finally Ms Staib outlines a ASA MAP to proactively address the safety risk implications that fall within the ASA responsibilities in regards to this incident.
Ms Staib : In response to this incident I have established a task force to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, air space design, training and human performance. The task force is led by an air traffic controller who is reporting directly to me.
}The cheese (mouldy Swiss variety):
Enter stage left ozfuscation Fort Fumble style and at the tailend of Senator Fawcett's questioning on the Barrier destruction
:
Mr McCormick : Yes, we will take that on notice and provide you with all the documentation we can. I am cognizant that the committee had a discussion earlier today with Mr Mrdak about FOI versus committee requests, and we acknowledge that anything we give to you will be in confidence. We will do our utmost to give you anything we have available on that, and we will certainly find the reports you refer to and the recommendation paperwork that came to me which led to the serious and imminent risk decision. Is it satisfactory that we go up to that decision point?
Mr McCormick: I acknowledge your request, Senator, and we will take it on notice and check the legal advice. If it concurs with what we have heard today then we certainly will provide it.
Senator XENOPHON: What has legal advice got to do with it?
Senator XENOPHON: What has legal advice got to do with it?
On a final note and relevant to this post, it is good to see the MMSM, like the inestimable Ms Staib, are doing their job objectively (for a change) and reporting some of the real issues that matter to the aviation industry..
. Here SC gives credit where IMO credit is due :
Taskforce digs deeper into Qantas near miss
AIRSERVICES Australia has set up a taskforce into the circumstances behind an incident where two Qantas jets flying in opposite directions got close enough to activate a traffic collision-avoidance system alert.
The incident near Adelaide generated intense media coverage, speculating the two jets were within seconds of colliding. However, it turned out they were on offset reciprocal tracks and the closest they came to each other was 700ft vertically and 1.6 nautical miles laterally.
The separation breach occurred in en route space when one aircraft requested a change in altitude and was given clearance to climb while the jets were too close to each other.
The breach generated a short-term conflict alert at Airservices and prompted the controller to immediately cancel the clearance to climb and ordered the aircraft to descend while the other aircraft climbed in response to a TCAS resolution advisory.
Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib said the incident showed human error could sometimes occur in a complex system. "In response to this incident, I have established a taskforce to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, airspace design, training and human performance. The taskforce is led by an air-traffic controller who is reporting directly to me."
Ms Staib told a Senate estimates committee this week that aviation growth continued to be the most strategic challenge faced by Airservices, with the Melbourne-Sydney route listed as the second busiest air corridor in the world in terms of aircraft movements and Sydney-Brisbane the 12th busiest.
"On October 11 this year we achieved 1004 movements in Sydney in a day. This was the busiest day since the 2000 Olympics."
On the OneSky Australia project set to replace the existing national air-traffic control system with joint systems with the Defence Department, Ms Staib said tenders had closed and were being evaluated.
She was asked by South Australian senator Nick Xenophon about the scathing Civil Aviation safety Authority report that found there were 233 non-compliance notices between May 2003 and June last year.
The report made 35 proposals, about 20 aimed at management problems, in areas such as staffing levels, air-traffic control training, traffic information broadcast by aircraft (TIBA) incidents and the ability to provide air-traffic services. Senator Xenophon said it made disturbing reading and as a passenger he had a vested interest in what had been done to address the report.
Ms Staib said she received the report about a week after starting her job at Airservices and was also "very concerned about the report".
"Some of the detail in the analysis one could argue with, but I took the approach that the recommendations certainly could not be argued with," she said.
The Airservices chief said she implemented a plan to address the recommendations and all but one, the introduction of the Metron traffic flow software at Melbourne Airport, were complete.
She said a Nav Canada review found Airservices' staffing and rostering was sound and that it had an appropriate number of air-traffic controllers to provide the service. But it also said the way Airservices employed its workforce could be improved.
AIRSERVICES Australia has set up a taskforce into the circumstances behind an incident where two Qantas jets flying in opposite directions got close enough to activate a traffic collision-avoidance system alert.
The incident near Adelaide generated intense media coverage, speculating the two jets were within seconds of colliding. However, it turned out they were on offset reciprocal tracks and the closest they came to each other was 700ft vertically and 1.6 nautical miles laterally.
The separation breach occurred in en route space when one aircraft requested a change in altitude and was given clearance to climb while the jets were too close to each other.
The breach generated a short-term conflict alert at Airservices and prompted the controller to immediately cancel the clearance to climb and ordered the aircraft to descend while the other aircraft climbed in response to a TCAS resolution advisory.
Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib said the incident showed human error could sometimes occur in a complex system. "In response to this incident, I have established a taskforce to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, airspace design, training and human performance. The taskforce is led by an air-traffic controller who is reporting directly to me."
Ms Staib told a Senate estimates committee this week that aviation growth continued to be the most strategic challenge faced by Airservices, with the Melbourne-Sydney route listed as the second busiest air corridor in the world in terms of aircraft movements and Sydney-Brisbane the 12th busiest.
"On October 11 this year we achieved 1004 movements in Sydney in a day. This was the busiest day since the 2000 Olympics."
On the OneSky Australia project set to replace the existing national air-traffic control system with joint systems with the Defence Department, Ms Staib said tenders had closed and were being evaluated.
She was asked by South Australian senator Nick Xenophon about the scathing Civil Aviation safety Authority report that found there were 233 non-compliance notices between May 2003 and June last year.
The report made 35 proposals, about 20 aimed at management problems, in areas such as staffing levels, air-traffic control training, traffic information broadcast by aircraft (TIBA) incidents and the ability to provide air-traffic services. Senator Xenophon said it made disturbing reading and as a passenger he had a vested interest in what had been done to address the report.
Ms Staib said she received the report about a week after starting her job at Airservices and was also "very concerned about the report".
"Some of the detail in the analysis one could argue with, but I took the approach that the recommendations certainly could not be argued with," she said.
The Airservices chief said she implemented a plan to address the recommendations and all but one, the introduction of the Metron traffic flow software at Melbourne Airport, were complete.
She said a Nav Canada review found Airservices' staffing and rostering was sound and that it had an appropriate number of air-traffic controllers to provide the service. But it also said the way Airservices employed its workforce could be improved.
Government response to PelAir report/recommendations!
While the TASRR initiative, on the thread with that name is debated, derided, deflated , dessicated etc..etc let us not forget that we still have the PelAir report to be responded to.
Like Albo's GWEP did with the Pilot training inquiry, let's not allow the Truss ASRR white wash the 26 recommendations of the PelAir inquiry. The TASRR barely covers off on one recommendation (i.e. recommendation 13) and only smears the edges of several more. The PelAir recommendations are almost solely designed to return reason to the ATSB, get them back on track to be once again amongst the world leaders of transport safety investigation and to get them out from under the evil Empire's shadow of pending doom and decimation as an effective safety watchdog...
So a couple of excerpts from the recent Senate Supp Estimates:
& this....
And finally after Mrdak dumps Albo in the pooh:
So maybe the 4Ms (Minister, Mrdak, McScreamer & mi..mi..mi..Beaker) are all hoping the PelAir report can be lost in the flotsam of the TASRR, to be soon a small insignificant speck on the horizon??
However as a fully-fledged four bar member of the IOS I am here to inform them that it is not going to happen!!
Note1: Perhaps Truss should be seeing his response as a test case to see how fair dinkum he is and to provide confidence that the TASRR is not just another smokescreen of government obfuscation???
Note2: For further amusement it would appear that we will be soon privy to both the ATSBeaker and FF response, criticism and attempted whitewash of the PA report...I look fwd to documenting that on here..
Like Albo's GWEP did with the Pilot training inquiry, let's not allow the Truss ASRR white wash the 26 recommendations of the PelAir inquiry. The TASRR barely covers off on one recommendation (i.e. recommendation 13) and only smears the edges of several more. The PelAir recommendations are almost solely designed to return reason to the ATSB, get them back on track to be once again amongst the world leaders of transport safety investigation and to get them out from under the evil Empire's shadow of pending doom and decimation as an effective safety watchdog...
So a couple of excerpts from the recent Senate Supp Estimates:
CASA inquisition:
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps I will ask the secretary. Given the communication that was sent from CASA to the department what difficulty would there be for the department and CASA to provide us with a copy of CASA's response?
Mr Mrdak : The minister is currently finalising his consideration of a response to the Senate inquiry. I will take that on notice. I do not think there is an issue in principle but I would need to take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator XENOPHON: For instance,—I am not saying this would be the case—if the majority of this committee was minded to ask for that response at some stage, whether it waits for the minister's response to the Senate inquiry with recommendations, you do not see any particular difficulty with that as a matter of principle?
Mr Mrdak : Without pre-empting the minister's consideration of the matter, we have put an extensive amount of material and a draft response to successive ministers. Without prejudicing that process I will take that on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps I will ask the secretary. Given the communication that was sent from CASA to the department what difficulty would there be for the department and CASA to provide us with a copy of CASA's response?
Mr Mrdak : The minister is currently finalising his consideration of a response to the Senate inquiry. I will take that on notice. I do not think there is an issue in principle but I would need to take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator XENOPHON: For instance,—I am not saying this would be the case—if the majority of this committee was minded to ask for that response at some stage, whether it waits for the minister's response to the Senate inquiry with recommendations, you do not see any particular difficulty with that as a matter of principle?
Mr Mrdak : Without pre-empting the minister's consideration of the matter, we have put an extensive amount of material and a draft response to successive ministers. Without prejudicing that process I will take that on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: I just wanted to ask you, Mr Mrdak and the minister, about the Senate report Aviation accident investigations of May 2013, otherwise known as the Pel-Air report. That report contained a number of quite scathing findings both in relation to CASA and the ATSB, in particular the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB, about his competence in the handling of that investigation. It raised a number of serious issues in terms of the exchange of information between the two agencies and whether that, in fact, compromised or could potentially compromise air safety. Can the minister indicate—you may not need to take this on notice—when the government will be responding to quite a damning report that was unanimous in its findings across any party lines about—
Senator Sinodinos: My advice was we would respond before the end of the year. Are you aware that last week the minister also released the terms of reference and members for an international panel to undertake a fairly comprehensive review into aviation safety regulations in Australia?
Senator Sinodinos: My advice was we would respond before the end of the year. Are you aware that last week the minister also released the terms of reference and members for an international panel to undertake a fairly comprehensive review into aviation safety regulations in Australia?
Mr Mrdak : Following our conversation at the 29 May estimates, I provided advice to the minister on 5 June 2013.
Senator FAWCETT: Did that have recommendations for a response to the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak : It provided advice on the Senate report, including options for handling of the Senate inquiry report, yes.
{Query: I wonder if the committee could get a copy of the Dept previous/present Minister advice & options for handling of the Senate inquiry report}
Senator FAWCETT: Did it flag the fact that there were safety implications raised in the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak : It certainly drew to the minister's attention the findings of the Senate committee report.
Senator FAWCETT: Did that have recommendations for a response to the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak : It provided advice on the Senate report, including options for handling of the Senate inquiry report, yes.
{Query: I wonder if the committee could get a copy of the Dept previous/present Minister advice & options for handling of the Senate inquiry report}
Senator FAWCETT: Did it flag the fact that there were safety implications raised in the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak : It certainly drew to the minister's attention the findings of the Senate committee report.
However as a fully-fledged four bar member of the IOS I am here to inform them that it is not going to happen!! Note1: Perhaps Truss should be seeing his response as a test case to see how fair dinkum he is and to provide confidence that the TASRR is not just another smokescreen of government obfuscation???
Note2: For further amusement it would appear that we will be soon privy to both the ATSBeaker and FF response, criticism and attempted whitewash of the PA report...I look fwd to documenting that on here..
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Game on.
Fair comment Sarcs, the game has gone on long enough, time for a penalty shoot out. Winner take all. Lockhart was buried many years ago but it never really went away. Meanwhile the IOS has used the time and worked out how to play this game. There is hope that this Senate committee will not disappoint. Somehow I just can't see them strolling off the pitch humiliated and embarrassed by a bunch of clerks. Nope, no way; that's a good team out there, lets hope they all keep shooting straight.....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions, from the man at the back of the room.
The curious, orphan - FOI-EF 12-8481, - is proving to be quite 'a three pipe problem'. It is curious because:-
It emanates from the then DoIT. The response time from Beaker was 23 minutes (a personal best).
It never saw the light of day in the Pel Air inquiry. But someone, presumably associated with calling the inquiry on, requested a whole raft of associated correspondence documents, this being the only one to escape. It escaped the mass cull under S47 F, being the only one released for the requested period. Further time records were broken by the incredibly short length of time it took to find and analyse the three years of correspondence requested, process elimination protocols, edit the volume, decide to claim sanctuary under S 47, provide a response; and then top it all off by setting a new, world best time to get it onto the FOI disclosure log. Wow.
Aye, it's a puzzle all right; it may go some way to explaining why NX dragged the Information Commissioner into play. So to the questions:-
Was there a serious game of push and shove in the schoolyard going on?
Was Pel Air just being used as a football in serious points scoring manoeuvre and the inquiry was simply never, ever expected to go the distance it did ?
Why was the DAS and other addressees responses not provided in the package?
What sort of truth is it that makes taking the shellacking dished out by the Senate a better proposition than having "it" exposed?
And yes, I am now officially curious. The cock up barrow can only be pushed so far. Clues ? Skeletons ? – anyone????? -.
It emanates from the then DoIT. The response time from Beaker was 23 minutes (a personal best).
It never saw the light of day in the Pel Air inquiry. But someone, presumably associated with calling the inquiry on, requested a whole raft of associated correspondence documents, this being the only one to escape. It escaped the mass cull under S47 F, being the only one released for the requested period. Further time records were broken by the incredibly short length of time it took to find and analyse the three years of correspondence requested, process elimination protocols, edit the volume, decide to claim sanctuary under S 47, provide a response; and then top it all off by setting a new, world best time to get it onto the FOI disclosure log. Wow.
Aye, it's a puzzle all right; it may go some way to explaining why NX dragged the Information Commissioner into play. So to the questions:-
Was there a serious game of push and shove in the schoolyard going on?
Was Pel Air just being used as a football in serious points scoring manoeuvre and the inquiry was simply never, ever expected to go the distance it did ?
Why was the DAS and other addressees responses not provided in the package?
What sort of truth is it that makes taking the shellacking dished out by the Senate a better proposition than having "it" exposed?
And yes, I am now officially curious. The cock up barrow can only be pushed so far. Clues ? Skeletons ? – anyone????? -.