Merged: Senate Inquiry
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
And Truss only knows what he thinks he's doing.
I don't have a quote wrap function anymore so in answer to your question to me, "what's your point", the answer is that your education of this mortal individual only exemplifies what is wrong with CASA. It's run by Lawyers and everything is written for and by Lawyers to confuse people like me who aren't Lawyers.
That's a bit like subordinating me by the way.
No Christmas card for you mate and I'll drink the beer that I'm not giving you for a pressie. (yellow smilie with finger waving derr).
I don't have a quote wrap function anymore so in answer to your question to me, "what's your point", the answer is that your education of this mortal individual only exemplifies what is wrong with CASA. It's run by Lawyers and everything is written for and by Lawyers to confuse people like me who aren't Lawyers.
That's a bit like subordinating me by the way.
No Christmas card for you mate and I'll drink the beer that I'm not giving you for a pressie. (yellow smilie with finger waving derr).
Which achieves precisely nothing.
I’m disappointed that my attempts to point the way to the only glimmer of hope are unwelcome.
But I’m used to that…
Good luck with your crusade.
I’m disappointed that my attempts to point the way to the only glimmer of hope are unwelcome.
But I’m used to that…Good luck with your crusade.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hedscratchinbookwurkin stuff.
Cheer up Creamy – at least you always try to make sense of the puzzles. Some of your attempts are flourishing, for example – non aligned independent Senators. When you first floated the notion it intrigued me and being a self confessed political ignoramus, I asked some not as thick to explain. It's quite a game this political lark, but once you get the blinkers off some of it at least becomes clear (sometimes).
I listened very carefully to remarks made by Sen. Fawcett during the AMROBA meeting Friday last. Then I listened twice more, once you get the cotton wool out things become much clearer. I respect Fawcett, but you can see (or hear in this case) where he's hamstrung and although he tries to show the way, he really can't push the barrow too far. The disappointing thing is realising this as a fact of political reality.
Fawcett did advocate submissions by all, even if you just grab (for example) the AMROBA offering, write a brief covering letter to the effect that their submission is 'your' submission, it seems that helps the numbers game, which appears to be an essential element. Crazy ain't it, but if you want to win, you must know how to play.
Part of the Fawcett opening remarks involved not lashing CASA but explaining 'how' dodgy legislation has affected you. Now this opens a basket of snakes; a 'he said – she said' legal argument about 'law' rather than a discussion on how bad law is being subjectively applied; or how the administrative policy hammer is used to enforce rule sets which do not remotely affect 'safety'. So good intentions once again pave the way to hell's gate.
We need the reform, we must reform the regulator and to do that, 'we' must ensure that the executive will power nerve is touched. It's a shame the review is all trussed up in party politics. It's a disgrace that the final Truss contribution to Australian aviation is dishing out the wet lettuce leaf whips with strict instructions to play nice; what a weak note to end a lacklustre career on. It's sad but true, Fawcett would have been a bloody handy asset, no doubt he'll do the best he can; but I fear Creamy has the right of it. It's the independent, non aligned or Sunny's PMC that will turn the trick. Well, let's at least try to win the first rubber, if numbers are needed then our end of the deal is to supply them.
I don't however think we should be conned into believing that no matter what, the powers of darkness will win this event; no matter how many previous disappointing games have been lost. Sure, it's just another attempted fit up, trick is to work out how to beat the buggers. "I'll get the first round in Creamy".
I listened very carefully to remarks made by Sen. Fawcett during the AMROBA meeting Friday last. Then I listened twice more, once you get the cotton wool out things become much clearer. I respect Fawcett, but you can see (or hear in this case) where he's hamstrung and although he tries to show the way, he really can't push the barrow too far. The disappointing thing is realising this as a fact of political reality.
Fawcett did advocate submissions by all, even if you just grab (for example) the AMROBA offering, write a brief covering letter to the effect that their submission is 'your' submission, it seems that helps the numbers game, which appears to be an essential element. Crazy ain't it, but if you want to win, you must know how to play.
Part of the Fawcett opening remarks involved not lashing CASA but explaining 'how' dodgy legislation has affected you. Now this opens a basket of snakes; a 'he said – she said' legal argument about 'law' rather than a discussion on how bad law is being subjectively applied; or how the administrative policy hammer is used to enforce rule sets which do not remotely affect 'safety'. So good intentions once again pave the way to hell's gate.
We need the reform, we must reform the regulator and to do that, 'we' must ensure that the executive will power nerve is touched. It's a shame the review is all trussed up in party politics. It's a disgrace that the final Truss contribution to Australian aviation is dishing out the wet lettuce leaf whips with strict instructions to play nice; what a weak note to end a lacklustre career on. It's sad but true, Fawcett would have been a bloody handy asset, no doubt he'll do the best he can; but I fear Creamy has the right of it. It's the independent, non aligned or Sunny's PMC that will turn the trick. Well, let's at least try to win the first rubber, if numbers are needed then our end of the deal is to supply them.
I don't however think we should be conned into believing that no matter what, the powers of darkness will win this event; no matter how many previous disappointing games have been lost. Sure, it's just another attempted fit up, trick is to work out how to beat the buggers. "I'll get the first round in Creamy".
Last edited by Kharon; 18th Dec 2013 at 19:49. Reason: Saving my pennies to buy CP a Chrissy beer.
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
Creampuff;
The fact that we even communicate is an achievement given our interaction over a very long period. It's OK to forgive, but one never forgets. That will probably be too cryptic for most readers and I apologize for that. I drank your beer last night and mellowed to the stage whereby I will drink another of yours tonight. So you see, it achieved much. You may give some thought of sending more for me to drink. Ring me for delivery details.
Your attempts to point the way are not lost on me and I have advocated political pragmatism for many years. Indeed I have practiced to a fine art the "leaking" to opposition party's things that benefit me and my "therapy" which you so wrongly call a "crusade". Who can forget the letter from The Deputy Prime Minister of the day to CASA Chairman of the Board accusing them of loosing evidence?
If I may be so bold, and at the risk of being ridiculed, my pragmatism would extend to including The Greens as they appear to support "minority groups". A change of strategy would need to occur for them to take note as they only support radical and noisy minority groups.
Do you see the problem?
I once advocated civil disobedience at a significant GA meeting years back and all but a few laughed at me. CASA were in attention and I was talked to.
Imagine the headlines?
Age may have wearied me, yet my memory is intact and I do have much to educate other up and coming "criminals waiting to be caught". Trouble is they ask for your advice, you give it, and they do something else 180 degrees to where you steered them.
Oh well, it keeps CASA in business.
The fact that we even communicate is an achievement given our interaction over a very long period. It's OK to forgive, but one never forgets. That will probably be too cryptic for most readers and I apologize for that. I drank your beer last night and mellowed to the stage whereby I will drink another of yours tonight. So you see, it achieved much. You may give some thought of sending more for me to drink. Ring me for delivery details.
Your attempts to point the way are not lost on me and I have advocated political pragmatism for many years. Indeed I have practiced to a fine art the "leaking" to opposition party's things that benefit me and my "therapy" which you so wrongly call a "crusade". Who can forget the letter from The Deputy Prime Minister of the day to CASA Chairman of the Board accusing them of loosing evidence?
If I may be so bold, and at the risk of being ridiculed, my pragmatism would extend to including The Greens as they appear to support "minority groups". A change of strategy would need to occur for them to take note as they only support radical and noisy minority groups.
Do you see the problem?
I once advocated civil disobedience at a significant GA meeting years back and all but a few laughed at me. CASA were in attention and I was talked to.
Imagine the headlines?
Age may have wearied me, yet my memory is intact and I do have much to educate other up and coming "criminals waiting to be caught". Trouble is they ask for your advice, you give it, and they do something else 180 degrees to where you steered them.
Oh well, it keeps CASA in business.
Of course the lobbying effort should include The Greens!
That’s why I keep saying “the non-major party aligned Senators”. That includes The Greens!
The next time the government asks The Greens for its ‘wish-list’ in return for support for some government legislation (as has already happened with the ‘debt ceiling’), what is the risk to The Greens and how hard would it be for them to add to the list: “Finalisation of substantive actions to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations”? You might find this a revelation, but members of The Greens may have the smarts to work out that it’s in the public interest for those recommendations to be properly addressed.
Ask all the other non-major party aligned Senators to do the same, come 1 July 2014. They’ll get chances to give the government their ‘wish-list’ as well.
You see: Now that you’re past the denial, anger and depression phases, you’re now into the all-important realisation and renewal phases.
Politics has almost nothing to do with what’s right or wrong. It’s almost entirely about what’s expedient. Come the day that the government desperately wants something passed through the Senate, and all the non-major party aligned Senators say: “Not until substantive actions have been finalised to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry in Aviation Accident Investigation”, that’s when something substantive will happen. Until that day, forget the government. If the government cared about the recommendations, it would already have done something substantive about them.
That’s why I keep saying “the non-major party aligned Senators”. That includes The Greens!
The next time the government asks The Greens for its ‘wish-list’ in return for support for some government legislation (as has already happened with the ‘debt ceiling’), what is the risk to The Greens and how hard would it be for them to add to the list: “Finalisation of substantive actions to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations”? You might find this a revelation, but members of The Greens may have the smarts to work out that it’s in the public interest for those recommendations to be properly addressed.
Ask all the other non-major party aligned Senators to do the same, come 1 July 2014. They’ll get chances to give the government their ‘wish-list’ as well.
I listened very carefully to remarks made by Sen. Fawcett during the AMROBA meeting Friday last. Then I listened twice more, once you get the cotton wool out things become much clearer. I respect Fawcett, but you can see (or hear in this case) where he's hamstrung and although he tries to show the way, he really can't push the barrow too far. The disappointing thing is realising this as a fact of political reality.
Politics has almost nothing to do with what’s right or wrong. It’s almost entirely about what’s expedient. Come the day that the government desperately wants something passed through the Senate, and all the non-major party aligned Senators say: “Not until substantive actions have been finalised to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry in Aviation Accident Investigation”, that’s when something substantive will happen. Until that day, forget the government. If the government cared about the recommendations, it would already have done something substantive about them.
vintage creampuff
Senator Nick the NAS ring leader perhaps?
Yes top post Creamy...
Speaking of Creamy's “non-major party aligned Senators” and all that?? I see that Senator X has definitely not given the game away when it comes to the PelAir report, from QONs index:
Regardless of the "differences of opinion" and in order to support Creamy's one glimmer of hope with the NAS come July '14 IMO it is about time that the IOS put the blowtorch under one Minister Truss and held him to account on his rhetoric back in May:
So Minister get on with it please??
ps And if you can't handle the heat Minister maybe you should get off the pot and let Barnaby have a crack..TICK TOCK!
That’s why I keep saying “the non-major party aligned Senators”. That includes The Greens!
The next time the government asks The Greens for its ‘wish-list’ in return for support for some government legislation (as has already happened with the ‘debt ceiling’), what is the risk to The Greens and how hard would it be for them to add to the list: “Finalisation of substantive actions to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations”? You might find this a revelation, but members of The Greens may have the smarts to work out that it’s in the public interest for those recommendations to be properly addressed.
The next time the government asks The Greens for its ‘wish-list’ in return for support for some government legislation (as has already happened with the ‘debt ceiling’), what is the risk to The Greens and how hard would it be for them to add to the list: “Finalisation of substantive actions to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations”? You might find this a revelation, but members of The Greens may have the smarts to work out that it’s in the public interest for those recommendations to be properly addressed.
Speaking of Creamy's “non-major party aligned Senators” and all that?? I see that Senator X has definitely not given the game away when it comes to the PelAir report, from QONs index
:
142 ATSB 02
XENOPHON Pel-Air (written)
It is now over four years since the ditching of VH-NGA off Norfolk Island, and nearly seven months since the committee issued its report on aviation accident investigations. Has the ATSB formulated a response to this report?
a. If so, please provide a copy of the response provided to the Minister or department.
b. Will the ATSB be implementing any of the report’s recommendations? If so, when?
c. In particular, will the ATSB be withdrawing its report into the Pel-Air incident and conducting a further investigation?
d. Does the Chief Commissioner still maintain the ditching was the fault of the pilot, and that there were no systemic issues involved?
143 ATSB 03
XENOPHON Pel-Air
The ATSB recently completed a review of loss of separation incidents in Australia, and concluded that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame.
a. How does this compare with the CASA review of Airservices Australia, which found serious regulatory breaches and resulted in CASA revoking ASA’s ongoing approval? Isn’t this in contrast to the ATSB’s findings?
b. Given the findings of the Pel-Air report, what confidence can the Australian public have that the ATSB was thorough and rigorous in its investigation, and did not seek to mitigate any impact the investigation may have on CASA or Airservices Australia?
c. Does the ATSB acknowledge that the significant failings of the Pel-Air report, and the lack of response to those failings, puts the ATSB’s reputation at risk?
144 ATSB 04
XENOPHON Pel-Air
I note that the Canadian TSB has been commissioned to undertake an independent review of the ATSB’s reporting processes.
a. Who commissioned the review?
b. Why was the TSB chosen, and who made that choice?
c. What is the process for the review?
XENOPHON Pel-Air (written)
It is now over four years since the ditching of VH-NGA off Norfolk Island, and nearly seven months since the committee issued its report on aviation accident investigations. Has the ATSB formulated a response to this report?
a. If so, please provide a copy of the response provided to the Minister or department.
b. Will the ATSB be implementing any of the report’s recommendations? If so, when?
c. In particular, will the ATSB be withdrawing its report into the Pel-Air incident and conducting a further investigation?
d. Does the Chief Commissioner still maintain the ditching was the fault of the pilot, and that there were no systemic issues involved?
143 ATSB 03
XENOPHON Pel-Air
The ATSB recently completed a review of loss of separation incidents in Australia, and concluded that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame.
a. How does this compare with the CASA review of Airservices Australia, which found serious regulatory breaches and resulted in CASA revoking ASA’s ongoing approval? Isn’t this in contrast to the ATSB’s findings?
b. Given the findings of the Pel-Air report, what confidence can the Australian public have that the ATSB was thorough and rigorous in its investigation, and did not seek to mitigate any impact the investigation may have on CASA or Airservices Australia?
c. Does the ATSB acknowledge that the significant failings of the Pel-Air report, and the lack of response to those failings, puts the ATSB’s reputation at risk?
144 ATSB 04
XENOPHON Pel-Air
I note that the Canadian TSB has been commissioned to undertake an independent review of the ATSB’s reporting processes.
a. Who commissioned the review?
b. Why was the TSB chosen, and who made that choice?
c. What is the process for the review?
...“MINISTER Anthony Albanese (swap Albo for Truss..) must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,...
...“The recommendations, handed down last Thursday by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading....
....“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Truss must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency...”
) must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,......“The recommendations, handed down last Thursday by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading....
....“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Truss must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency...”
ps And if you can't handle the heat Minister maybe you should get off the pot and let Barnaby have a crack..TICK TOCK!
Last edited by Sarcs; 19th Dec 2013 at 07:28.
While CAsA is away the IOS mice will play..!
Love the 12 days of CAsAmas by Cactusjack plus the IOS pictorial calendar for 2014! Merry CAsAmas
However on a more serious note I have some concerns for the DAS with more evidence of symptoms pointing to a prognosis of FIMD (Foot in Mouth disease)...: CASA factual corrections
Hmm..wonder why he didn't put his moniker on the Heff letter..
Maybe the DAS should get that looked at early in the New Year, I hear his PMO is something of an expert on Tourettes Syndrome and other sensitive psychological issues...
Merry CAsAmas However on a more serious note I have some concerns
for the DAS with more evidence of symptoms pointing to a prognosis of FIMD (Foot in Mouth disease)...: CASA factual corrections 16 December 2013
Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan
Chair
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and
Regional Affairs and Transport
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Chair
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and
Regional Affairs and Transport
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Senator Heffernan
Clarification of statements made at Estimates hearing on 18 November 2013
I write regarding certain statements made during the appearance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) at the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Estimates hearing on 18 November 2013.
In response to a question from Senator Xenophon on the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 172 report into Airservices Australia, the following statements were made (at page 64 of Hansard):
Senator Xenophon: Yes, the 172 report was quite critical. lt was quite significant that you renewed ASA's license on a conditional basis. That is right, isn 't it?'
Mr McCormick: Yes.
Mr McCormick: Yes.
This is-not strictly correct. I would like to clarify that, in this regard, Airservices previously held a perpetual certificate issued under Part 172 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. That is, the certificate had no expiry date. Following the Part 172 review, CASA varied the certificate by including an expiry date. lt otherwise imposed no conditions on the holder.
On another matter relating to recommendations in the Pel Air report, I advised (at page 59 of Hansard):
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.
I wish to clarify the record to advise that, while the Government formulated its own responses to the recommendations, CASA did provide advice, via the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (as it then was), as to which recommendations, in CASA's view, might be accepted, which ones might be rejected, and which ones might either be accepted or rejected with certain qualifications. My advice during the Estimates hearing may have given the impression that CASA did not and would not provide explicit advice of this kind to the Minister-whereas, in fact, CASA did so, via the Department.
I apologise if my comments have been in any way misleading.
Yours sincerely
John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Maybe the DAS should get that looked at early in the New Year, I hear his PMO is something of an expert on Tourettes Syndrome and other sensitive psychological issues...
Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Dec 2013 at 06:31. Reason: HO..HO..HO..Merry CAsAmas!
The limitless lengths of skullduggery is breathtaking!!
Kharon post #198 on TASRR thread :
Yesterday there was a new thread started on the GA forum that was extremely relevant to the "K" Conundrum post, it was headed Civil Aviation Order Amendment Instrument 2013 (No.1). So I went to refer to it this AM and I discovered that it has mysteriously disappeared 
...hmm..so went to history picked up the link and got the following message...
..Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator...
So that perked my natural curiosity even more
?? So I went to find this amendment that the now non-existent thread was referring... COMLAW link : Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1)- F2013L02192
The explanatory statement is of interest....
"Purpose
The purpose of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) (the CAO amendment) is to delete from the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (the new CAO 48.1) 3 references to “4 December 2013” and insert “1 September 2014”.
This is consequent upon the registration of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing Suite) Regulation 2013 (the date amendment regulations) on 25 November 2013.
These regulations changed from “4 December 2013”, to “1 September 2014”, the date of commencement of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1) (the licensing suite regulations).
Background
The licensing suite regulations establish a new legislative regime for flight crew licensing. To do so, the licensing suite regulations repeal Part 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) which contains the current legislative rules for flight crew licensing (see item 5 in Schedule 2 of the licensing suite regulations).
However, Part 5 also contains regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988, under which CASA may give directions establishing flight and duty time limitations for holders of flight crew licences. Such directions have been given in CAO Part 48 (comprising CAO 48.0, CAO 48.1, CAO 48.2, CAO 48.3 and CAO 48.4).
As a result of the date amendment regulations, the licensing suite regulations will repeal regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988 on 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013), and replace it with a new and similar directions power under regulation 210A of CAR 1988. However, a new regulation 335 of CAR 1988, inserted by the licensing suite regulations will have the effect of continuing in force CAO Part 48 as if it had been made on 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013)."
All reasonable I guess, so why the skullduggery?? CAsA (yes the "s" is shrinking..) maybe all on hols but surely something of reasonable significance, such as a CAO 48.1 instrument amendment, could be notified via at least the t.w.i.t.t.e.r guy who still seems to be working??
I also question the veracity of this eleventh hour amendment, the cynic in me suspects that this maybe heralding a pre-emptive manoeuvre to counter the NX DM on 48.1??
Note: The following quote from VIPA perhaps highlights the significance of Nick's CAO 48.1 Disallowance Motion and why it could possibly be the watershed moment for the future of aviation safety regulation in 2014 (provided the Senators remain angry and united):
Good work VIPA ...here's hoping you make a submission to the TASRR as well...?? Meanwhile it should be every IOS member's solemn duty to throw support behind Senator X and his 48.1 DM, as it would appear to be a touchy subject in the halls of Fort Fumble...
:
Apart from estimates, the Pel Air committee don't have a platform to work from and Fawcett is hobbled by party lines. That leaves NX independent to carry on the work. As Sarcs points out, even a PM had trouble getting answers, this combined with the unpardonable delay from the miniscule in responding to the Pel Air recommendations, despite some serious questions being asked of Mrdak and McComic does not auger well. Transparency, truth and resolution are already running at diminishing rate of return on the industry investment.
...hmm..so went to history picked up the link and got the following message.....Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator...
So that perked my natural curiosity even more
?? So I went to find this amendment that the now non-existent thread was referring... COMLAW link : Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1)- F2013L02192The explanatory statement is of interest....
"Purpose
The purpose of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) (the CAO amendment) is to delete from the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (the new CAO 48.1) 3 references to “4 December 2013” and insert “1 September 2014”.
This is consequent upon the registration of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing Suite) Regulation 2013 (the date amendment regulations) on 25 November 2013.
These regulations changed from “4 December 2013”, to “1 September 2014”, the date of commencement of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1) (the licensing suite regulations).
Background
The licensing suite regulations establish a new legislative regime for flight crew licensing. To do so, the licensing suite regulations repeal Part 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) which contains the current legislative rules for flight crew licensing (see item 5 in Schedule 2 of the licensing suite regulations).
However, Part 5 also contains regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988, under which CASA may give directions establishing flight and duty time limitations for holders of flight crew licences. Such directions have been given in CAO Part 48 (comprising CAO 48.0, CAO 48.1, CAO 48.2, CAO 48.3 and CAO 48.4).
As a result of the date amendment regulations, the licensing suite regulations will repeal regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988 on 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013), and replace it with a new and similar directions power under regulation 210A of CAR 1988. However, a new regulation 335 of CAR 1988, inserted by the licensing suite regulations will have the effect of continuing in force CAO Part 48 as if it had been made on 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013)."
All reasonable I guess, so why the skullduggery??
CAsA (yes the "s" is shrinking..) maybe all on hols but surely something of reasonable significance, such as a CAO 48.1 instrument amendment, could be notified via at least the t.w.i.t.t.e.r guy who still seems to be working??I also question the veracity of this eleventh hour amendment, the cynic in me suspects that this maybe heralding a pre-emptive manoeuvre to counter the NX DM on 48.1??
Note: The following quote from VIPA perhaps highlights the significance of Nick's CAO 48.1 Disallowance Motion and why it could possibly be the watershed moment for the future of aviation safety regulation in 2014 (provided the Senators remain angry and united
):
New Regulations
The VIPA Flight Safety, Technical and Regulatory Compliance subcommittee has been looking at a number of changes in the CASA regulations over the last year. Significant rule changes are in progress at the moment that will have a significant impact on not just VIPA members but all professional pilots in Australia. Of particular concern to our profession are the changes to CAO 48, Flight and Duty times for flight crew. CASA has seemingly deliberately watered down the ICAO recommended Standards and Recommended Procedures (SARP) in this area, which has lead to a more fatiguing rule set than we currently have in CAO 48.
We are not alone in this damning assessment of the changes to CAO 48. Aus ALPA, AIPA and the Federation along with many others have all raised serious objections to the new rules. Regardless, the new rules have all but been signed into law and are waiting ratification through parliament albeit with one noted caveat. In Parliament, the legislation is subject to a motion to disallow. What this effectively means is that if a member raises objections to the new rules they will be reviewed and are then subject to ‘substantive’ change. It is our understanding that that there are members of Parliament unwilling to allow this legislation to go through Parliament unchallenged.
CASA has previously stated that the current CAO 48 is devoid of sound scientific principles to define the prescribed Flight and Duty limits cites this inadequacy to advocate for its new rule set. The new CAO 48 is supposed to be based on currently recognised and credible fatigue science. Sadly the new CAO 48.1 does not come close to satisfying the scientific principles. For example the scientific studies that ICAO relied upon to develop the SARP for FDP limits recognise that flight duty should not exceed 8 to 9 hours at the controls. The new rules routinely allow for this, which is no different to what we currently do.
Other jurisdictions around the world have adopted this ICAO SARP, which is applicable to augmented as well as unaugmented operations. Most Virgin flight crew would be well aware of the fatigue associated with 8 hours of flight time in a duty period doing return transcontinental flights. Under the new rules CASA will allow pilots to extend out to 16 hours of duty time and up to 10.5 hours of flight time.
The new FDP rules are divided into 3 tiers. (1) Basic operations for small operators, (2) Airlines with prescriptive FDP limits and (3) Airlines with no prescribed limits but a full Fatigue Risk Management System. During the consultation period for the new rules it was argued that the need for an airline to adopt an FRMS was virtually non-existent as the prescriptive limits in tier (2) were so lacking in constraint and scientific principles. Perhaps CASA designed it this way so they would not have the regulatory burden to provide oversight for such a complex system?
Should these regulations be subject to a disallowance as we expect, it may give the industry and proponents like Senator Nick Xenophon further avenue to push for meaningful changes to the new FDP rule set. VIPA FSTRC has committed to getting a seat at the table of future Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Working Groups facilitated by CASA.
The VIPA Flight Safety, Technical and Regulatory Compliance subcommittee has been looking at a number of changes in the CASA regulations over the last year. Significant rule changes are in progress at the moment that will have a significant impact on not just VIPA members but all professional pilots in Australia. Of particular concern to our profession are the changes to CAO 48, Flight and Duty times for flight crew. CASA has seemingly deliberately watered down the ICAO recommended Standards and Recommended Procedures (SARP) in this area, which has lead to a more fatiguing rule set than we currently have in CAO 48.
We are not alone in this damning assessment of the changes to CAO 48. Aus ALPA, AIPA and the Federation along with many others have all raised serious objections to the new rules. Regardless, the new rules have all but been signed into law and are waiting ratification through parliament albeit with one noted caveat. In Parliament, the legislation is subject to a motion to disallow. What this effectively means is that if a member raises objections to the new rules they will be reviewed and are then subject to ‘substantive’ change. It is our understanding that that there are members of Parliament unwilling to allow this legislation to go through Parliament unchallenged.
CASA has previously stated that the current CAO 48 is devoid of sound scientific principles to define the prescribed Flight and Duty limits cites this inadequacy to advocate for its new rule set. The new CAO 48 is supposed to be based on currently recognised and credible fatigue science. Sadly the new CAO 48.1 does not come close to satisfying the scientific principles. For example the scientific studies that ICAO relied upon to develop the SARP for FDP limits recognise that flight duty should not exceed 8 to 9 hours at the controls. The new rules routinely allow for this, which is no different to what we currently do.
Other jurisdictions around the world have adopted this ICAO SARP, which is applicable to augmented as well as unaugmented operations. Most Virgin flight crew would be well aware of the fatigue associated with 8 hours of flight time in a duty period doing return transcontinental flights. Under the new rules CASA will allow pilots to extend out to 16 hours of duty time and up to 10.5 hours of flight time.
The new FDP rules are divided into 3 tiers. (1) Basic operations for small operators, (2) Airlines with prescriptive FDP limits and (3) Airlines with no prescribed limits but a full Fatigue Risk Management System. During the consultation period for the new rules it was argued that the need for an airline to adopt an FRMS was virtually non-existent as the prescriptive limits in tier (2) were so lacking in constraint and scientific principles. Perhaps CASA designed it this way so they would not have the regulatory burden to provide oversight for such a complex system?
Should these regulations be subject to a disallowance as we expect, it may give the industry and proponents like Senator Nick Xenophon further avenue to push for meaningful changes to the new FDP rule set. VIPA FSTRC has committed to getting a seat at the table of future Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Working Groups facilitated by CASA.
...here's hoping you make a submission to the TASRR as well...?? Meanwhile it should be every IOS member's solemn duty to throw support behind Senator X and his 48.1 DM, as it would appear to be a touchy subject in the halls of Fort Fumble...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good work @ VIPA. (Again).
Sarcs, I too was puzzled by the CAO 48 thread being arbitrarily dismissed, I had hoped for an open discussion on the subject. When you get down into the weeds on 48, there are some interesting legal 'twist and turns'. The boys (and girls I note today) at – PAIN - are on the ball with a link to the document; deuced hard to find. Perhaps the TWLR panel could take it on first as an example of what we are all cranky about. Viz:-
CAA NZ Part 121. Subpart K. Page 90 through to 93 defines FDR. =3 pages.
CAA NZ Part 125. Subpart K. Page 78 through to 80 defines FDR. = 2 pages.
CAA NZ Part 135. Subpart K. Page 66 through to 68 defines FDR. = 2 pages.
Essentially NZ contains both operator and flight crew FDR to less pages than the amendment to CAO 48 which cites :-
CAO 48.0; 48.1; 48.2; 48.3; 48.4; Part 5, Schedule 2; CAR 5.55; Car 210A; new CAR 335: Act 98 (5) 98 (5 AAA); CAR 215; sections 24, 38 and 42 of LIA 2003; sub regulation 11.068 (1); paragraph 28 (BA); subsection 98 (4A) and, just for additional clarity.
As neither we, nor anyone else has a clue where CAO (new) 48 is up to in the Parliamentary process and the latest amendment was launched at 10 24 on Christmas eve; and, given that the Senator blocking the order was probably taking a well earned siesta. The IOS were just wondering if the WLR could perhaps start with this regulation; so honest operators can make the required changes to FDR protocols in a timely manner, preventing inadvertent breaches of a regulation (or order if you like).
Busy, busy. busy. No time left now for pulling crackers or eating left over Christmas pudding - Good catch that man..
CAA NZ Part 121. Subpart K. Page 90 through to 93 defines FDR. =3 pages.
CAA NZ Part 125. Subpart K. Page 78 through to 80 defines FDR. = 2 pages.
CAA NZ Part 135. Subpart K. Page 66 through to 68 defines FDR. = 2 pages.
Essentially NZ contains both operator and flight crew FDR to less pages than the amendment to CAO 48 which cites :-
CAO 48.0; 48.1; 48.2; 48.3; 48.4; Part 5, Schedule 2; CAR 5.55; Car 210A; new CAR 335: Act 98 (5) 98 (5 AAA); CAR 215; sections 24, 38 and 42 of LIA 2003; sub regulation 11.068 (1); paragraph 28 (BA); subsection 98 (4A) and, just for additional clarity.
Heads of power.
Regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988, and its replacement in regulation 210A, were used among the heads of power for the new CAO 48.1 to facilitate the eventual repeal of CAO Part 48 which was made under regulation 5.55 and which, from 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013), is continued in force under regulation 210A by virtue of regulation 335.
Regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988, and its replacement in regulation 210A, were used among the heads of power for the new CAO 48.1 to facilitate the eventual repeal of CAO Part 48 which was made under regulation 5.55 and which, from 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013), is continued in force under regulation 210A by virtue of regulation 335.
Definition of flight crew licence
Similar considerations apply to the definition of flight crew licence in the new CAO 48.1.
Previously, the licensing suite regulations would have commenced on 4 December 2013, meaning that for the purposes of the new CAO 48.1 (which formally commenced in April 2013), the definition of flight crew licence would have 2 sources:
(a) the definition that applied for CAR Part 5 purposes before 4 December 2013; and
(b) the new definition that applied on and from 4 December 2013 as a result of the new licensing rules to be established by the licensing suite regulations.
The mentions of “4 December 2013” are, therefore, amended to become “1 September 2014”.
Similar considerations apply to the definition of flight crew licence in the new CAO 48.1.
Previously, the licensing suite regulations would have commenced on 4 December 2013, meaning that for the purposes of the new CAO 48.1 (which formally commenced in April 2013), the definition of flight crew licence would have 2 sources:
(a) the definition that applied for CAR Part 5 purposes before 4 December 2013; and
(b) the new definition that applied on and from 4 December 2013 as a result of the new licensing rules to be established by the licensing suite regulations.
The mentions of “4 December 2013” are, therefore, amended to become “1 September 2014”.
Conclusion.
This legislative instrument is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.
This legislative instrument is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.
Busy, busy. busy. No time left now for pulling crackers or eating left over Christmas pudding - Good catch that man..
Last edited by Kharon; 4th Jan 2014 at 01:47.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what's the problem?
Karon,
someone else commented on the lack of drama in the procedural issues...
CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is still law until the disallowance debate is resolved, when the probability of a good outcome is tiny (due to the standard party line nobbling and the traditions of government)...
what we really need is for everyone who believes the new CAO 48 rules could be improved to get off their arses and have their say - the Senate needs a sound basis to disallow and the more sectors that offer amendments and the greater the commonality the stronger the case
someone else commented on the lack of drama in the procedural issues...
CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is still law until the disallowance debate is resolved, when the probability of a good outcome is tiny (due to the standard party line nobbling and the traditions of government)...
what we really need is for everyone who believes the new CAO 48 rules could be improved to get off their arses and have their say - the Senate needs a sound basis to disallow and the more sectors that offer amendments and the greater the commonality the stronger the case
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another poster pointed out the amendment was Made 19 Dec 2013, Registered 24 Dec 203, and then Repealed/Ceased 26 Dec2013. Reason; Repealed under Division 1 of Part 5A of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is still law until the disallowance debate is resolved
One of the reasons for raising the subject is the quoted above; which may prevent the follow through, as quoted below.
"[what] we really need is for everyone who believes the new CAO 48 rules could be improved to get off their arses and have their say" –
"[the] Senate needs a sound basis to disallow and the more sectors that offer amendments and the greater the commonality the stronger the case."
VIPA – "Should these regulations be subject to a disallowance as we expect, it may give the industry and proponents like Senator Nick Xenophon further avenue to push for meaningful changes to the new FDP rule set. VIPA FSTRC has committed to getting a seat at the table of future Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Working Groups facilitated by CASA. (My bold).
If 'industry' is not aware that the necessary debate to repeal the CAO has not occurred, let alone done and dusted, we may just be saddled with more 'bad law'. And that, Prince Nick, is the problem as I see it and my reason for posting. Happy to stand corrected.
Perhaps Creampuff, Leadsled or Sunny have some suggestions. Seeing the problem is not quite the same thing as knowing how to fix it. That puzzle just makes my poor old wooden head hurt.
Diametric dilemma and the teddy in the garden!
Prince:
Kharon:
Yep I think you nailed it "K"...
Here's a possible scenario...
All interested industry stakeholders do get together and propose a Senate petition in support of disallowing the current CAO 48.1 instrument...tick!
The petition garners a couple thousand signatures and gives the ammunition required for the Senators to get up NX's DM..tick!
So the Minister is forced to pull the instrument and then what??
He sends it to the department to be fixed and the department sends it onto Fort Fumble
(as they are recognised by government as the experts on all things that fly)...
Then FF do another bogus consult with industry, Hoodoo Voodoo and his cronies change the wording a little bit, maybe add another dozen or so pages and send it off to be re-drafted by the AG's department, the end product is eventually re-entered into parliament a couple years later...
Hmm..."round and round the garden runs the teddy bear..."
Fantasy Land solution: To circumvent the teddy bear routine if (big if..?) industry could collectively get together and rewrite the instrument to the NZ regs or FAA regs and then hand to Senator Nick to present, with the petition, a private members bill to be put to the Parliament. Hmm..well it is a fantasy...
??
Reality: Unfortunately until someone grows some pretty big cohunas and is prepared to take a gas axe and a couple of grinders to the bureaucratic iron-fist of aviation safety (or there is at least two smoking holes with mass casualties) we will be stuck with the bear running around the garden.
what we really need is for everyone who believes the new CAO 48 rules could be improved to get off their arses and have their say - the Senate needs a sound basis to disallow and the more sectors that offer amendments and the greater the commonality the stronger the case
If 'industry' is not aware that the necessary debate to repeal the CAO has not occurred, let alone done and dusted, we may just be saddled with more 'bad law'. And that, Prince Nick, is the problem as I see it and my reason for posting. Happy to stand corrected.
Here's a possible scenario...
All interested industry stakeholders do get together and propose a Senate petition in support of disallowing the current CAO 48.1 instrument...tick!
The petition garners a couple thousand signatures and gives the ammunition required for the Senators to get up NX's DM..tick!
So the Minister is forced to pull the instrument and then what??
He sends it to the department to be fixed and the department sends it onto Fort Fumble
(as they are recognised by government as the experts on all things that fly)...Then FF do another bogus consult with industry
, Hoodoo Voodoo and his cronies change the wording a little bit, maybe add another dozen or so pages and send it off to be re-drafted by the AG's department, the end product is eventually re-entered into parliament a couple years later...Hmm..."round and round the garden runs the teddy bear..."
Fantasy Land solution: To circumvent the teddy bear routine if (big if..?) industry could collectively get together and rewrite the instrument to the NZ regs or FAA regs and then hand to Senator Nick to present, with the petition, a private members bill to be put to the Parliament. Hmm..well it is a fantasy...
??Reality: Unfortunately until someone grows some pretty big cohunas and is prepared to take a gas axe and a couple of grinders to the bureaucratic iron-fist of aviation safety (or there is at least two smoking holes with mass casualties
) we will be stuck with the bear running around the garden.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
long bows confusing new message
Boyz,
I raised what I think is the real issue when I thought that others were off chasing procedural rabbits. I probably should have been clearer.
The procedural issue of the automatic repeal of an amending instrument - in this case, a consequential amendment to reflect the delay in the licensing suite - is, and quite properly should be, of no real concern to those folks who are following the progress of the document that was amended.
The amendment is quite unrelated to the CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 disallowance matter.
I had no intention in suggesting any connection between the events - I just wanted to take the opportunity to raise the need for further action from us to support Senator Xenophon.
As I said earlier, CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is still law until the disallowance debate is resolved. I understand that the current plan is to debate the Disallowance motion on 06 Mar 13. There are 3 possible outcomes:
1 - if the motion lapses without debate then the Instrument is disallowed and ceases to have the force of law;
2 - if the motion is debated and voted in, then the Instrument is disallowed and ceases to have the force of law; or
3 - if the motion is debated and voted out, then the Instrument continues to have the force of law.
Senator Xenophon moved the motion and he will have to lead the debate to convince the Senate that, despite the improvements in some areas, there are enough dangerous bits to force CASA to amend the Instrument. He clearly needs industry advice to develop a compelling argument - after all, he is not an aviator and he is not a fatigue risk expert. What is he? He really is a voice for aviation safety in the Senate and his opponents, once noisy in Opposition but now traditionally prevented from criticising Government agencies, will be extensively briefed by CASA.
This will not be a debate marked by each speaker being a SME, but rather a debate that depends on the quality of the briefings. The Skull will treat it like any other forum in which CASA (and, by default, he) may be criticised - blitzkrieg and belittle any opposition regardless of any obvious or potential merit that might be found.
Senator Fawcett may be out of our reach - he will be on a tight leash from Warren and may even be suborned as CASA's mouthpiece - and his aviation experience does not extend to several years of the daily grind operating commercially under the current FTLs. Nonetheless, he also needs to be well-briefed as to the consequences of the Instrument and how it will be delivered at the coalface.
Rewriting the rules on what we think is the way it works in NZ will never wash with AGs or CASA - there have been plenty of opportunities to adopt that path and none have been taken up.
For mine, tell Nick first and Fawcett second - I do not think that there is any other viable pathway.
I raised what I think is the real issue when I thought that others were off chasing procedural rabbits. I probably should have been clearer.
The procedural issue of the automatic repeal of an amending instrument - in this case, a consequential amendment to reflect the delay in the licensing suite - is, and quite properly should be, of no real concern to those folks who are following the progress of the document that was amended.
The amendment is quite unrelated to the CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 disallowance matter.
I had no intention in suggesting any connection between the events - I just wanted to take the opportunity to raise the need for further action from us to support Senator Xenophon.
As I said earlier, CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is still law until the disallowance debate is resolved. I understand that the current plan is to debate the Disallowance motion on 06 Mar 13. There are 3 possible outcomes:
1 - if the motion lapses without debate then the Instrument is disallowed and ceases to have the force of law;
2 - if the motion is debated and voted in, then the Instrument is disallowed and ceases to have the force of law; or
3 - if the motion is debated and voted out, then the Instrument continues to have the force of law.
Senator Xenophon moved the motion and he will have to lead the debate to convince the Senate that, despite the improvements in some areas, there are enough dangerous bits to force CASA to amend the Instrument. He clearly needs industry advice to develop a compelling argument - after all, he is not an aviator and he is not a fatigue risk expert. What is he? He really is a voice for aviation safety in the Senate and his opponents, once noisy in Opposition but now traditionally prevented from criticising Government agencies, will be extensively briefed by CASA.
This will not be a debate marked by each speaker being a SME, but rather a debate that depends on the quality of the briefings. The Skull will treat it like any other forum in which CASA (and, by default, he) may be criticised - blitzkrieg and belittle any opposition regardless of any obvious or potential merit that might be found.
Senator Fawcett may be out of our reach - he will be on a tight leash from Warren and may even be suborned as CASA's mouthpiece - and his aviation experience does not extend to several years of the daily grind operating commercially under the current FTLs. Nonetheless, he also needs to be well-briefed as to the consequences of the Instrument and how it will be delivered at the coalface.
Rewriting the rules on what we think is the way it works in NZ will never wash with AGs or CASA - there have been plenty of opportunities to adopt that path and none have been taken up.
For mine, tell Nick first and Fawcett second - I do not think that there is any other viable pathway.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bi-product of furious agreement.
Ok, so far, so good.
We may (reluctantly) have to grant the Sleepy Hollow crew some latitude here. Sure ol' McComic may get a chance do the usual routine but; for the back room boys, there are a couple of problems which, by nature are poles apart. Warning, tongue in cheek Extreme Interpretation (EI) follows.
Operators, like the Roman galley masters of old, would love nothing better than to have a slave crew chained to the oars 24/7. The slave crew union, not thinking much of this idea would demand ice cream every day, seat cushions, no more than 2 hours on the oars in any given 24 hour period and restricted use of flogging as an incentive to do better. (End EI).
Now both sides can produce all manner of 'scientifically' supported data to prove their argument, both are prepared to argue their valid case. The regulators (bless 'em) not only have to referee this bun fight, but draft rules to suit and ensure that if fatigue is ever part of an accident, then their collective asses are covered. I would imagine that there would be some rather large guns pointing in their direction if – it could ever be proven, that the rules for fatigue management were defective. So, despite a natural urge to hammer the administration I feel we have to at least try and see their problem. The gods help them if their good intentions are ever shown to be unduly influenced, one way or t'uther.
I notice that the FAA, who can legitimately claim safety sovereignty, have shown the way (again) with their revised fatigue rules which have apparently managed to reach a most satisfactory conclusion. They probably have not satisfied everyone's wishes, but the interested parties have, in a democratic fashion, achieved a greatly improved regulation based on modern thinking. So Bravo the FAA. Meanwhile here at home – "round and around the garden" – seems an apt description and 25 years in not really a long wait in the life of a glacier; is it ?
Industry choice, FAR, NZ CAR; or, piss about for another few years and spend another million or so dollars on the CAO 48 imbroglio. Following on from Sarcs suggestion - let's suppose (just for fun) that every one signed a "We hate 48" petition, pilots, cabin crew and operators. Then 'someone' provided a 10 page explanation of why "We hate 48", backed up by a five page solution. All good solid stuff etc. To whom would the package be delivered ?:-
Miniscule Truss; to pass onto DoIT, to hand off to the WLR panel who would hand it straight back to the Miniscule who would; surprise, surprise ! flick it, like a hot potato back to CASA to fix.
Perhaps Nick Xenophon – an independent, he may get it to the debating stage, win the round and hands his results back to – you guessed it, the Miniscule who will look all grave and concerned, then, flick pass and around and around she goes, again.
Bollocks - the NZ CAR do it in half a dozen easiology pages, the FAA close behind: pick one and let's be done with it.
PNM # "The Skull will treat it like any other forum in which CASA (and, by default, he) may be criticised - blitzkrieg and belittle any opposition regardless of any obvious or potential merit that might be found.
Operators, like the Roman galley masters of old, would love nothing better than to have a slave crew chained to the oars 24/7. The slave crew union, not thinking much of this idea would demand ice cream every day, seat cushions, no more than 2 hours on the oars in any given 24 hour period and restricted use of flogging as an incentive to do better. (End EI).
Now both sides can produce all manner of 'scientifically' supported data to prove their argument, both are prepared to argue their valid case. The regulators (bless 'em) not only have to referee this bun fight, but draft rules to suit and ensure that if fatigue is ever part of an accident, then their collective asses are covered. I would imagine that there would be some rather large guns pointing in their direction if – it could ever be proven, that the rules for fatigue management were defective. So, despite a natural urge to hammer the administration I feel we have to at least try and see their problem. The gods help them if their good intentions are ever shown to be unduly influenced, one way or t'uther.
I notice that the FAA, who can legitimately claim safety sovereignty, have shown the way (again) with their revised fatigue rules which have apparently managed to reach a most satisfactory conclusion. They probably have not satisfied everyone's wishes, but the interested parties have, in a democratic fashion, achieved a greatly improved regulation based on modern thinking. So Bravo the FAA. Meanwhile here at home – "round and around the garden" – seems an apt description and 25 years in not really a long wait in the life of a glacier; is it ?
Industry choice, FAR, NZ CAR; or, piss about for another few years and spend another million or so dollars on the CAO 48 imbroglio. Following on from Sarcs suggestion - let's suppose (just for fun) that every one signed a "We hate 48" petition, pilots, cabin crew and operators. Then 'someone' provided a 10 page explanation of why "We hate 48", backed up by a five page solution. All good solid stuff etc. To whom would the package be delivered ?:-
Miniscule Truss; to pass onto DoIT, to hand off to the WLR panel who would hand it straight back to the Miniscule who would; surprise, surprise ! flick it, like a hot potato back to CASA to fix.
Perhaps Nick Xenophon – an independent, he may get it to the debating stage, win the round and hands his results back to – you guessed it, the Miniscule who will look all grave and concerned, then, flick pass and around and around she goes, again.
Bollocks - the NZ CAR do it in half a dozen easiology pages, the FAA close behind: pick one and let's be done with it.
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
History supports the notion that a carrot in front of the donkey works better than a bayonet up the bum. Some of these carbon tax mob are starting to realize this and it pertains to any form of persuasion. Abbott appears to recognize this, but I doubt all his team, including bureaucrats appreciate this, and find it an alien conception.
I've come to the firm conclusion over the break that governments of both persuasions, appear to have the same party line/ platform on CASA and I further believe, it is due to "elitism" whereby they don't want anybody flying in their airspace because their bums are precious. Little do they realize the big sky theory isn't just about 7.5 million sq km of Australian continent, but is multiplied many times by hemispherical levels.
Politicians, Bureaucrats and everyone else that sits up the front and drinks freebies should do a course on three dimensional risk analysis and forget about every aircraft being in the air at the same time.
Perhaps they know it all, in which case they are as responsible as CASA for the predictable "smoking hole".
A pox on them all!
I've come to the firm conclusion over the break that governments of both persuasions, appear to have the same party line/ platform on CASA and I further believe, it is due to "elitism" whereby they don't want anybody flying in their airspace because their bums are precious. Little do they realize the big sky theory isn't just about 7.5 million sq km of Australian continent, but is multiplied many times by hemispherical levels.
Politicians, Bureaucrats and everyone else that sits up the front and drinks freebies should do a course on three dimensional risk analysis and forget about every aircraft being in the air at the same time.
Perhaps they know it all, in which case they are as responsible as CASA for the predictable "smoking hole".
A pox on them all!
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 5th Jan 2014 at 23:41. Reason: Tidyness and niceness.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...gulations.html
Read what USA pilots think of FAR 117 rules
Read what USA pilots think of FAR 117 rules
What's your point Blackie...err No Hoper??
2 posts on two threads on subject somewhat related...
But I followed your suggestion and took some good goss from the exercise... It would seem most of the pushback was on restricting pilots on how or where they live/commute from. Seems some feel it is an infringement on their rights i.e. Bill of Rights. But then you had examples of 'take it in your stride' and good common sense to it all....
Especially liked this poster's approach: #23
So kudos to you No Hoper there is a lesson to be learnt from the Yank experience...
But I followed your suggestion and took some good goss from the exercise...
It would seem most of the pushback was on restricting pilots on how or where they live/commute from. Seems some feel it is an infringement on their rights i.e. Bill of Rights. But then you had examples of 'take it in your stride' and good common sense to it all....Especially liked this poster's approach: #23
When I was an F/O, the worst day I ever had was with a Captain with whom I'd never flown.
We departed a mid-US airport for the west coast approx 1700.
Enroute to the first stop, the Capt began to descend from cruise altitude without clearance, in order to make a published crossing restriction on the arrival. When I asked what he was doing, he insisted that we had to descend in order to make the restriction.
I repeated that we hadn't yet been cleared and suggested that he slow in order to make the restriction, once cleared. He snapped at me that he didn't need any flying lessons. A commuting Captain in the jumpseat had really big eyes.
Second leg (mine) was nominal.
Third leg, the Captain blew a level-off altitude while hand flying a circling departure from a major city, even after I reminded him about the restriction. I pushed forward on the yoke and leveled a hundred or so high, since he was looking at his side console, reading the departure plate. He never even saw the inbound heavy restricted 1,000 above pass directly over us.
During the subsequent night VOR approach to a mountainous destination, he got far behind in the descent while making a lengthy PA to the PAX.
The approach controller asked if we were going to make the field. I asked the captain if he had the field in sight and he said, "Where?" I pointed directly over the nose. We made the field, but just barely.
Once in the hotel room, I considered waking up a chief pilot, but decided to wait and see how he was the next morning.
The next two days of the 3-day trip were absolutely normal - like flying with a totally different captain. I asked him where he lived and he named a west coast city. He then related how on the first day of the trip he had commuted in on an early morning flight and usually got a hotel room for a nap, but had run into some buddies and had spent the day in ops instead. I calculated that by the time of the last landing he had been awake some 21 hours.
I decided then and there, that when I upgraded I would get my own commuter place (with no other crew) and always commute in the day before my trips. I made good on that decision and never, in 12 years as captain, commuted in on the day of my trip. It made for a much less stressful career.
We departed a mid-US airport for the west coast approx 1700.
Enroute to the first stop, the Capt began to descend from cruise altitude without clearance, in order to make a published crossing restriction on the arrival. When I asked what he was doing, he insisted that we had to descend in order to make the restriction.
I repeated that we hadn't yet been cleared and suggested that he slow in order to make the restriction, once cleared. He snapped at me that he didn't need any flying lessons. A commuting Captain in the jumpseat had really big eyes.
Second leg (mine) was nominal.
Third leg, the Captain blew a level-off altitude while hand flying a circling departure from a major city, even after I reminded him about the restriction. I pushed forward on the yoke and leveled a hundred or so high, since he was looking at his side console, reading the departure plate. He never even saw the inbound heavy restricted 1,000 above pass directly over us.
During the subsequent night VOR approach to a mountainous destination, he got far behind in the descent while making a lengthy PA to the PAX.
The approach controller asked if we were going to make the field. I asked the captain if he had the field in sight and he said, "Where?" I pointed directly over the nose. We made the field, but just barely.
Once in the hotel room, I considered waking up a chief pilot, but decided to wait and see how he was the next morning.
The next two days of the 3-day trip were absolutely normal - like flying with a totally different captain. I asked him where he lived and he named a west coast city. He then related how on the first day of the trip he had commuted in on an early morning flight and usually got a hotel room for a nap, but had run into some buddies and had spent the day in ops instead. I calculated that by the time of the last landing he had been awake some 21 hours.
I decided then and there, that when I upgraded I would get my own commuter place (with no other crew) and always commute in the day before my trips. I made good on that decision and never, in 12 years as captain, commuted in on the day of my trip. It made for a much less stressful career.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAIN (part) DJ file release
IOS member request
The following zippy link is for a chronological order of all, that PAIN is aware, of the CASA delegate documents, including the original ‘Notice of Suspension’, the variations etc to the James licence suspension and subsequent lifting of that suspension with the current caveats on his ATPL.
DJ decision maker docs chronology
Usual precautions apply i.e. DOWNLOAD NOW button only, click once to avoid the spam etc.
Cheers
P2 (a.k.a ‘the quiet achiever’)
Last edited by PAIN_NET; 23rd Jan 2014 at 00:57.
Who is responsible??
Ahh PAIN..'thanks for the memories' ...
Warning: GOFs (Geriatric Old Farts) turn down the volume on your hearing aids.. The rest of us.. "turn it up loud OK!"
[YOUTUBE]
Hmm..remember this..(c/o Senate clangers file)?? {my bold in relevant parts}
But now, reading the latest released DJ docs, we get an anomaly on the standard FF motto of.."I was in Montreal" or "I wasn't responsible!". In the delegate action chain we get the following sent to DJ on 14 January 2011:
Skip to last page...
Note that it is written in a very similar style (template) to the original NOS...so any guesses to who the signatory (delegate) should be...
Warning: I nearly choked on my beer but here it is...
Warning: GOFs (Geriatric Old Farts) turn down the volume on your hearing aids..
The rest of us.. "turn it up loud OK!"[YOUTUBE]
Mr McCormick : I cannot speak for what the then regime did 12 years ago with those recommendations—
Senator XENOPHON: But you can tell me, surely? CASA obviously dealt with this pretty promptly. It was back in 2000. When was the review in relation to the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands concluded by CASA?
Mr McCormick : As far as that report goes and the recommendation and what the disposition was, we will have to take that on notice. None of us were involved, unfortunately, in the year 2000. There is a project at the moment involved in fuel for remote islands—
Senator XENOPHON: Surely, it cannot be the same project? Surely, it cannot be the same project from a recommendation issued on 22 February 2000? It cannot be!
Mr McCormick : That is the first I have heard of that recommendation, myself personally, so I do not connect the two. As I said, we will take on notice that particular report—
Senator XENOPHON: I reckon that we are going to have to have you back here, because it relates to a number of incidents in relation to a BAe 146 aircraft, a Piper Navajo Chief, a Chieftain and another BAe 146; it gives a number of instances where things got pretty hairy because of the unreliability of weather forecasts at Norfolk Island. CASA was undertaking a review in relation to fuel requirements for flights to remote islands—this is over 12 years ago—surely, it has been resolved? It must be! Please do not tell me that there is still an ongoing review of fuel requirements for remote islands 12 years after it was raised—nearly 13 years, rather, after it was raised.
Mr McCormick : Senator, I appreciate that what you have raised there is that people should be very prudent when they are flight-planning to Norfolk Island. I agree with that, whereas the project—
Senator XENOPHON: No, no, no! I am sorry, Mr McCormick—there was a role for CASA to take:
… the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
Can anyone at this table please tell me what the review involved? When was that review concluded?
Mr McCormick : Sorry, Senator, we were not involved in this. We were not in these positions in the year 2000. I do not know what has happened to that report; I will find it out on notice.
Senator FAWCETT: There is actually a broader issue, though, Mr McCormick. There is no closed-loop system so that recommendations that are made by ATSB, that CASA agrees—particularly we have seen a number where, in a coroner's court, the coroner has said, 'We'll close out this issue, because ATSB made a recommendation and CASA said they will do it,' and then a decade later there is has been no action. Is that an issue for the travelling public? I hear you that you were not there for that whole 10 years, but we are talking about a system now, not personalities. Is the system not working as it should?
Mr McCormick : I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only got here in 2009....blah..blah..blah
Senator NASH: Was anybody at the table employed by CASA in 2000?
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?
Mr Boyd : Yes, but not in that position.
Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?
Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.
Senator FAWCETT: You've got an alibi!... Going to the terms of reference here, though, looking at an ATSB report into this incident at Norfolk Island, here are two regulatory issues, one to do with the categorisation of aeromedical flights—and that should have been upgraded to charter so there was more protection granted, and that did not occur—and that we should be more prescriptive about fuel requirements for remote islands. I understand that Pel-Air has actually implemented that, post your special audit, and I understand CASA has undertaken again to look at that issue—both of which point to the fact that here is a regulatory issue that, if implemented 10 years ago, either of those, this accident probably would not have happened...
Mr McCormick : I think—and someone may have said it earlier; we did not get to hear all the testimony—the more that is in an incident report, not to be used for punitive measures but information which informs people of the background of what has happened, what some of the other factors are, even if they have no real bearing on the outcome, I think that is all to the good. That is a move to the good...Yeah right! The more that is in the report the better. That is my personal view, but I have no control—as I have said, and I will now say it again. You know I am going to say, 'I have no control over what the ATSB puts in the report.'...Yeah right!...blah..blah..blah
CHAIR: We took evidence this morning that 13 per cent of the flights into Norfolk Island had a fuel critical issue when they got there.
Mr McCormick : From Pel-Air or in general?
CHAIR: In general.
Mr McCormick : We would not have that information—
CHAIR: We will get it to you.
Senator XENOPHON: Chair, could I just go back to this issue, and I will read the analysis to you of a report that is now almost 13 years old—the ATSB report:
Reports to the Bureau, including those detailed in the factual information section above, indicate that the actual weather conditions at Norfolk Island have not been reliably forecast on a number of occasions. Current regulations do not require pilots of regular public transport aircraft to carry fuel reserves other than those dictated by the forecast weather conditions. The safety consequences of an unforecast deterioration in the weather at an isolated aerodrome like Norfolk Island may be serious.
The present level of reliability of meteorological forecasts and the current regulatory requirements are not providing an adequate level of safety for passenger-carrying services to Norfolk Island.
Very serious matters were raised in that report. Is it fair to assume that in fact CASA has not, after almost 13 years, reviewed the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands?
Mr McCormick : In actual fact, we have reviewed the fuel requirements to remote islands, but not Norfolk Island. We have reviewed them to Christmas Island in relation to some of the flights being conducted on behalf of the Australian government.
Senator XENOPHON: But not Norfolk Island.
Mr McCormick : Norfolk Island as a specific issue is now included, as you said earlier—or somebody said in the committee on Pel-Air's list of remote island air fields, et cetera. The regular public transport that you are referring to there, of course, carry an alternate if required and carry the contingency fuel required, which is the difference to aerial work... blah..blah..blah
...What we have in place as far as regulatory development goes, and again I cannot talk about what happened in 2000, is the removal of that anomaly. But we are also cognisant of ICAO's requirements.
Senator XENOPHON: Let's not take it any further, other than to ask you to please advise us on notice what action CASA took following recommendations made on 22 February 2000.
Mr McCormick : Yes, we will take that on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: But you can tell me, surely? CASA obviously dealt with this pretty promptly. It was back in 2000. When was the review in relation to the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands concluded by CASA?
Mr McCormick : As far as that report goes and the recommendation and what the disposition was, we will have to take that on notice. None of us were involved, unfortunately, in the year 2000. There is a project at the moment involved in fuel for remote islands—
Senator XENOPHON: Surely, it cannot be the same project? Surely, it cannot be the same project from a recommendation issued on 22 February 2000? It cannot be!
Mr McCormick : That is the first I have heard of that recommendation, myself personally, so I do not connect the two. As I said, we will take on notice that particular report—
Senator XENOPHON: I reckon that we are going to have to have you back here, because it relates to a number of incidents in relation to a BAe 146 aircraft, a Piper Navajo Chief, a Chieftain and another BAe 146; it gives a number of instances where things got pretty hairy because of the unreliability of weather forecasts at Norfolk Island. CASA was undertaking a review in relation to fuel requirements for flights to remote islands—this is over 12 years ago—surely, it has been resolved? It must be! Please do not tell me that there is still an ongoing review of fuel requirements for remote islands 12 years after it was raised—nearly 13 years, rather, after it was raised.
Mr McCormick : Senator, I appreciate that what you have raised there is that people should be very prudent when they are flight-planning to Norfolk Island. I agree with that, whereas the project—
Senator XENOPHON: No, no, no! I am sorry, Mr McCormick—there was a role for CASA to take:
… the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
Can anyone at this table please tell me what the review involved? When was that review concluded?
Mr McCormick : Sorry, Senator, we were not involved in this. We were not in these positions in the year 2000. I do not know what has happened to that report; I will find it out on notice.
Senator FAWCETT: There is actually a broader issue, though, Mr McCormick. There is no closed-loop system so that recommendations that are made by ATSB, that CASA agrees—particularly we have seen a number where, in a coroner's court, the coroner has said, 'We'll close out this issue, because ATSB made a recommendation and CASA said they will do it,' and then a decade later there is has been no action. Is that an issue for the travelling public? I hear you that you were not there for that whole 10 years, but we are talking about a system now, not personalities. Is the system not working as it should?
Mr McCormick : I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only got here in 2009....blah..blah..blah
Senator NASH: Was anybody at the table employed by CASA in 2000?
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?
Mr Boyd : Yes, but not in that position.
Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?
Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.
Senator FAWCETT: You've got an alibi!... Going to the terms of reference here, though, looking at an ATSB report into this incident at Norfolk Island, here are two regulatory issues, one to do with the categorisation of aeromedical flights—and that should have been upgraded to charter so there was more protection granted, and that did not occur—and that we should be more prescriptive about fuel requirements for remote islands. I understand that Pel-Air has actually implemented that, post your special audit, and I understand CASA has undertaken again to look at that issue—both of which point to the fact that here is a regulatory issue that, if implemented 10 years ago, either of those, this accident probably would not have happened...
Mr McCormick : I think—and someone may have said it earlier; we did not get to hear all the testimony—the more that is in an incident report, not to be used for punitive measures but information which informs people of the background of what has happened, what some of the other factors are, even if they have no real bearing on the outcome, I think that is all to the good. That is a move to the good...Yeah right!
The more that is in the report the better. That is my personal view, but I have no control—as I have said, and I will now say it again. You know I am going to say, 'I have no control over what the ATSB puts in the report.'...Yeah right!...blah..blah..blahCHAIR: We took evidence this morning that 13 per cent of the flights into Norfolk Island had a fuel critical issue when they got there.
Mr McCormick : From Pel-Air or in general?
CHAIR: In general.
Mr McCormick : We would not have that information—
CHAIR: We will get it to you.
Senator XENOPHON: Chair, could I just go back to this issue, and I will read the analysis to you of a report that is now almost 13 years old—the ATSB report:
Reports to the Bureau, including those detailed in the factual information section above, indicate that the actual weather conditions at Norfolk Island have not been reliably forecast on a number of occasions. Current regulations do not require pilots of regular public transport aircraft to carry fuel reserves other than those dictated by the forecast weather conditions. The safety consequences of an unforecast deterioration in the weather at an isolated aerodrome like Norfolk Island may be serious.
The present level of reliability of meteorological forecasts and the current regulatory requirements are not providing an adequate level of safety for passenger-carrying services to Norfolk Island.
Very serious matters were raised in that report. Is it fair to assume that in fact CASA has not, after almost 13 years, reviewed the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands?
Mr McCormick : In actual fact, we have reviewed the fuel requirements to remote islands, but not Norfolk Island. We have reviewed them to Christmas Island in relation to some of the flights being conducted on behalf of the Australian government.
Senator XENOPHON: But not Norfolk Island.
Mr McCormick : Norfolk Island as a specific issue is now included, as you said earlier—or somebody said in the committee on Pel-Air's list of remote island air fields, et cetera. The regular public transport that you are referring to there, of course, carry an alternate if required and carry the contingency fuel required, which is the difference to aerial work... blah..blah..blah
...What we have in place as far as regulatory development goes, and again I cannot talk about what happened in 2000, is the removal of that anomaly. But we are also cognisant of ICAO's requirements.
Senator XENOPHON: Let's not take it any further, other than to ask you to please advise us on notice what action CASA took following recommendations made on 22 February 2000.
Mr McCormick : Yes, we will take that on notice.
Skip to last page...
Note that it is written in a very similar style (template) to the original NOS...so any guesses to who the signatory (delegate) should be...
Warning: I nearly choked on my beer but here it is...