Merged: Senate Inquiry

[Kharon]

Off the Texas wedge shot.

Couple of things that still get my panties in a bunch with the DJ tale of woe. CASA suspended license and ratings after the accident, why?. The company should, could and would have suspended him as a matter of routine. Internal and external investigations to follow, decisions made and considered action taken. Having identified where the problems lay, a training module, pertinent to those issues could be developed by any competent HOTAC. Pel Air have access to a Be 20 simulator, why was this not considered an option?. Why was any further 'legally justified' additional testing for ATPL deemed necessary?. Sure, test the bloke, test him hard, throw the whole lot at him. The guy stuffed up the flight planning, plenty of curly questions in that subject. But if he survives a fair, legitimate test, game over. Should there be any lingering doubt related to flight or instrument skills, there is the trusty base check. Don't want to use company staff ?, fair enough then use an independent ATO; why is only a hand picked CASA hit man acceptable?, why not allow an independent observer?. A pass is a pass. Game over. Even if CASA had proven grounds to suspend, the word of a HOTAC or independent ATO should be ample evidence of effective cure.

It's not so much what was prepared for James, which although a bit harsh is understandable. It's the caveats and 'sufficiently' rigorous standards to be subjectively assessed against a non published, non existent flight check benchmark, with the specially selected CASA 'examining officer'; pass or fail to be at the discretion of this one individual.

It Is evident from the two Notices that the in-flight assessment was to be conducted with a degree of rigour consistent with the type of operation of accident flight.

While these aircraft will allow the CPL and CIR flight tests to be conducted against the prescribed assessment criteria, they are not sufficiently sophisticated or complex for CASA "to make an effective assessment of skills, ability and competence to hold an ATPL ".

In making this concession, CASA must ensure that the integrity of the necessary ATPL-level assessments is not compromised. The following modification to the Notice of Suspension is therefore suggested:-

A pass assessment would be at the discretion of the assessor.

To reiterate, this is not a change in the ground rules or goal posts, but a trade-off. The use of 'simple aeroplanes' for the CPL and CIR flight tests should be off-set by a rigorous ATPL assessment which, in all probability, would have taken place if the original in-flight assessment had been conducted in the Westwind aircraft as had originally been required

Based on the advice of the FTE and FO is I am satisfied that the approach proposed will address the flight test requirements and recommend this course of action. I also consider that we seek advice from LSD regarding the need or otherwise to amend the notice. I will wait for your thoughts prior to discussions with LSD.

We also need to discuss what if any conditions should be 'considered on James licence should he be successful ln the remaining examination requirements.

Please refer to the advice from Dr Aleck below.

My bold.
Now unless I've missed something, most of the physics applying to flight are about the same for all aircraft. So the recovery from stall technique, or speed control on final, or steep turns, or unusual attitudes etc. could be demonstrated in any light twin. There is little 'technique' difference in flying an ILS or NDB approach in any type, unless of course 140 knots in a jet is faster than in a King air. In any event the man passed the 'normal' tests CPL/MECIR (again). This charade should have ended there, company base check, clear to line operations: end of story.

But no, this pilot must be isolated and must fail, in support the pilot error tale; otherwise there may just be some blowback on the company and CASA. Can't have that, therefore 'he must fail'. The spell weavers get busy and out nothing provide caveats and outlandish, home made tests, which set up the preordained failure. The caveats, procedures and benchmarks are scripted by a non pilot, invented by his two sidekicks and probably the tea lady. All to re qualify a reasonably competent, qualified pilot who had already ticked all the mandatory boxes not once, but twice. He may be the roughest, laziest most hopeless driver in history, but a pass is a pass. Since when was it accepted that any fair test could be hammered into a no pass at any price scenario. The mutt was qualified, but now he has to jump through even more hoops of an extraordinary nature. Remember, there is no flight test required for the issue of ATPL.

Layer upon layer of justifying non existent requirements which, even if they could be parlayed into some form of legitimate 'additional testing requirements, could be met in the normal course of events, in house through the HOTAC or independent ATO.

[Sarcs]

And it only got worse for the DJ…!!

Well said that man….

Kharon:

But no, this pilot must be isolated and must fail, in support the pilot error tale; otherwise there may just be some blowback on the company and CASA. Can't have that, therefore 'he must fail'. The spell weavers get busy and out nothing provide caveats and outlandish, home made tests, which set up the preordained failure. The caveats, procedures and benchmarks are scripted by a non pilot, invented by his two sidekicks and probably the tea lady. All to re qualify a reasonably competent, qualified pilot who had already ticked all the mandatory boxes not once, but twice.

Remember the 014 catchcry from Coroner Chivell.... fits neatly with the DJ embuggerance….

….“I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved….”

If the DJ blasphemy was so abhorrent, so despicable and so totally unacceptable to all professional pilot standards why didn’t the wascally wabbit and his cohorts resort to r269..?? R269 is much..much more potentially punitive and restrictive..etc..etc..like a cyanide bomb down a wabbit warren, Wodger and his backers could have potentially eradicated DJ from the industry forever…no licence..no go??

Well it would appear that when DJ, after sitting the required testing, had the audacity to apply for a CPL chopper licence….well that was the final straw and subsequently this was issued (excerpts from the PAIN released docs, letter 22 June 2011)…







Then r269 (threat) makes an appearance...







FFS....it beggars belief really….

[Kharon]

Rolling the dice in Vegas.

Spend some time and carefully examine the Len Veger statement, that which would have been presented at the AAT; if CASA legal had not smartly headed the proceedings off at the pass. It distresses me greatly that a 20, 000 hour pilot could sign his name to such deceptive, homespun claptrap. CASA couldn't even play fair with the fuel planning data even when they had James bang to rights. Make no mistake, the pilot error gun was indisputably well and truly loaded; in advance.

Veger is all 'legal', if extreme; of course. Truth carefully married with spin to provide an 'impression' designed to scare some lay AAT member witless. The slippery, narrow, spin carefully manufactured for the sole purpose of working against any pilot in the AAT potentially resets the benchmark. Much is made of the CASA version of proper assessment of PNR/CP (well at least those who could agree what it was). CASA would have by using the Veger statement essentially declared all sensible, operational bets off.

If we are to accept the CASA 'all things anticipated' (probable or possible) tenet, the accepted 10,000 (depressurised) datum for calculations goes out of the window (literally). Many medivac flights must be conducted with a MSL cabin; given that on any one day the MSL QNH may change by 20Mb x 30 = 600 feet, must we now plan for and descend to 500 for every medivac PNR. Find me an aircraft that can maintain a MSL cabin at 10,000' with a window blown out. Save you the headscratichin, there ain't one. (10 to minus six probability rings a bell, but you see where we are headed, if you play the game with the CASA loaded dice).

The Veger missive implies that PNR 'planning contingencies' for various, multiple failure scenario based examples not normally 'planned' are essential. What the CASA missive fails to mention is (as he well knows) that any PNR milestone is a little like V1; existing for but a fleeting moment. Once past any significant 'milestone' the options reset, tilt, new game. Ask any proper pilot who has flown long haul to describe PNR, a moveable feast conjured by black magic would be a fair assessment. You cannot, as Veger insists you must, plan for every possible circumstance imaginable. But not to do so is heinous says the Veger. (10 to minus six probability rings a bell, but you see where we are headed, if you play the game with the CASA loaded dice).

So then, suddenly, right at one of several possible "PNR" datum's, zero cabin differential: instant pressurisation failure. What is carefully not mentioned is that by the time the "oh close the front door" moment has passed, so has the PNR. Which reduces the turn back options somewhat.

CASA calculations fail (dismally IMO) to account for 'drift down' options. The Veger method calls for calculations based on instant figures for 10,000. So are you going to go for the emergency descent, or assess the entire situation? - there is of oxygen for the punters (say 20 or 30 minutes, just for a number). Can the descent be managed at a rate conducive to arriving a 10,000 (F140 if you know your stuff) just as the oxygen supply expires. Do the maths. F400 < A010 over 30 minutes = 1000 fpm,= power back = fuel saved, therefore SGR improved (30 minutes at even at 300 knots is 150 miles). So we arrive A010, first questions. What is the wind, what is our 'effective' TAS, what SGR are we making and how many miles are there left in the tanks. Do we need a MSL cabin?, speed reduction, LRC, MPC, what if, what then; when will it all end?.....What if can be played all day, and what happens to the best laid plans of mice and men when Murphy takes a hand? (10 to minus six probability rings a bell, but you see where we are headed, if you play the game with the CASA loaded dice). Correct answer Grasshopper; you're wrong, no matter how many calculations you did or did not do, you can't win.

It's this type of operational bollocks that James was to be fitted up with. Sure, James should have nutted out the basic milestones, but Veger very carefully omits the factors which don't suit the CASA pilot error argument and salts it with the esoteric. Mind you, he probably didn't write it all that way, some of the worked wording is easily discernable, paw prints, key words and phrases etc. Anyway Davis decimated the Veger fuel calculations, the erroneous Nadi Metar is conveniently forgotten. Did James make a bollocks of the flight planning – Yes. But the very one sided arguments espoused for the benefit of the AAT did not leave it there.

The Veger statement degenerates into a snide professional cruci-fiction. Past failures are carefully interwoven into a really ugly hand crafted assassination. The way the entire James/Pel Air debacle was managed is utterly despicable, without any semblance of honour, integrity or of plain old fashioned honesty. In court I believe that the prosecution is not allowed to mention previous crimes and may not get away with too many fairy tales; but to the CASA in the AAT all's fair. The prearranged, forgone conclusion barked out by the masters voice must be upheld, no matter what. Aye, the happy life of a willing accomplice eh.

Toot toot.

[thorn bird]

K' the DJ saga makes me feel sick to my stomach and to be frank rather ashamed to be an Australian.The Pollies waffle on about the Australia ethic of fair go, as illustrated by the DJ cronicles, an absolute LIE.
That CAsA a government institution can manipulate facts to deflect the spotlight away from their own deficiencies by creating a scapegoat, to destroy someones livelihood and career to cover their own asses, to me is just another example of the level of CAsA corruption that Truss's enquiry should be examining.

Did DJ contravene any regulation's ???.

I heard a Poll was hastily called amongst the FOI's and the answer was tied!!, which perhaps is a reflection on the reasons for the level of frustration around the industry ie....

Seagoon " Thinks???How can I scew this lot around?? Aha!! I dont care what the previous FOI said, you are not in compliance, rewrite your Ops Manual"
Bluebottle "You dirty rotten swine!!! cant you #@$%^#$ As..h.les agree on anything!!

Did DJ comply with company SOP???..
would appear so given there was a history of flights by pelair out there, including by the Chief Pilot, now CAsA delegate, so if DJ was guilty...so was the CP and if DJ was to be thrown to the lions then surely the CP was not a fit and proper person as well??

Ah had a dream last night..."Total fantasy of course but plausible looking at the timeline"

Skull.." Wodger for gods sake do something those Bast..ds in the senate are smelling a rat and this could affect my pension"

Wabbit.. "Fear not oh Exhaulted one, I'll crucify the pilot just make sure the hooded one signs the death warrant"

Hooded One.."Wodger that damned pilot is still hanging up there bleeding all over everything and his lawyers are threatening all sorts of stuff, including my pension, I'll have a amend your death warrant, even I thought it was a tad draconian, get him down off the cross we'll just hang him a bit instead".

Wabbit.. "As you command, I'll write a new death warrant"...Thinks... "How dare that pilot question my divine authority..okay we'll just hang him with a bungy cord so he bounces back and forth, weighed down with a few inserted pineapples, and after that ....hmm (insert cackling laugh)"

Hooded one.. "Sorry Wodger, those lawyers are still threatening my pension so I'll have to go easier on the pilot, get him down off the scaffold
we'll just make him to do a little test instead"

Wabbit.. "As you command Oh superior...Minion!!, stop grovelling man!!
I know nothing of this piloting stuff, I want you to dream up a test, a test that not even a homesick angel could pass. It must be plausible, summon the spin doctors to assist, make it appear reasonable, spin it so a lay person would think any pilot could do it, but so full of improbables that we can slip a knife or two through".

In reality, if DJ is required to submit to this travesty the Pelair CP, now CAsA delegate, should also be required to submit to it, but then given the probity of CAsA he'd pass and DJ would fail, it would be pre-ordained.

The Davis submission to the senate pretty much puts a lie to CAsA's fuel calculations, and I have to wonder if DJ had have diverted to Noumea after he had passed his calculated PNR, CAsA plays that down but he had calculated a PNR, would DJ now be facing an inquisition for running out of fuel short of Tontouta, damned if he did and damned if he didnt.

[Frank Arouet]

Just to keep some balance.

CRITICS COWARDLY: CASA boss.
October 30/ 2009. Steve Creedy The Australian.


AIR-SAFETY supremo John McCormick has hit out at "mean-spirited, injudiciously self-serving and frequently false" attacks on Civil Aviation Safety Authority staff.
In a fierce defence of his staff, Mr McCormick said the vindictive public disparagement of individual CASA officers by names or station was wrong, unfair and, in some cases, "downright cowardly".
"It does nothing to advance the interests of our safety or organisational improvement, and it almost certainly is not intended to do either," Mr McCormick told a Senate estimates committee.
"If left unaddressed, it impugns the reputations and integrity of committed, capable and professional individuals who are dedicated to the critical, and sometimes thankless, regulatory and other safety-related tasks.
"And it takes a serious toll on morale of the entire staff in ways, dare I say, some of those who try to conceal what is often nothing more than demagogic vitriol behind the facade of appointed evaluatory critique could not begin to understand."
CASA has often been the target, sometimes justifiably, of industry criticism and has been the subject of repeated investigations and highly critical reports. But the growth of the internet has seen the emergence of websites allowing people operating under pseudonyms to launch angry, disparaging and sometimes defamatory attacks against each other and industry figures.
The CASA boss emphasised that he welcomed balanced, reasonable and constructive advice about where CASA had gone wrong or was perceived to have done so.
Well-meaning criticism, even that which was wide of the mark, would be helpful because it gave a better understanding of the way the authority's actions were perceived and experienced.
"So let me be clear. I have absolutely no interest in discouraging or dissuading our critics from drawing CASA's actual or assumed shortcomings to my attention, to the government's attention, or to the attention of the Australian public," he said.
"As I said, I welcome and embrace this.
"At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of CASA's actions as an organisation and what cannot be fairly characterised as other than mean-spirited, injudiciously self-serving and frequently false accusations, and vindictive public disparagement of individual CASA officers by name and station."
On wider issues, Mr McCormick told the committee he had made organisational changes within CASA and a review of the authority's documentation, procedures and practices was under way.
This had involved consultation with the industry, other stakeholders and staff, and he expected "other refinements" to CASA's structure would follow.
The organisation would also provide the industry and wider aviation community with a clearer understanding of how and why it regulated.
It was also moving to address issues about technical training identified in the 2008 International Civil Aviation Organisation audit with a new range of programs that included on-the-job recurrent and specialist training for technical staff.
The new CASA board had formally met twice and Mr McCormick said he was working with members to prioritise ways of finalising the regulatory reform process.
"Four key areas of regulatory reform we are concentrating on are airways, licensing, maintenance and flight operations," he said. "In this process, the industry will be consulted but the practice of the past -- consultation with a view to the achievement of consensus, where consultation frequently resulted in paralysed action, sometimes for years -- cannot and will not continue.
"Consultation does not equate to agreement and, while all views will be seriously considered and taken into account, at the end of the day CASA, as the regulator, is responsible for making, and will make, the final decisions."
The CASA boss said he hoped to have new maintenance regulations made in the first half of next year and that the complete legal drafting of the operational passenger transport licensing rules would be completed by the end of the year.
On the controversial changes to the six GAAP airports, Mr McCormick conceded the moves to reduce the number of aircraft allowed in a circuit and to boost air traffic control clearance requirements had received mixed reviews.
But he said it was a decision that had to be made in the best interests of safety.

"We are committed to closely working with Airservices, as well as with pilots and operators, in the management of each of the six aerodromes to ensure that the changes are implemented in a safe and structured manner."

CASA had also moved a step closer in boosting its presence in northern Australia by identifying new sites on Horn Island, Gove, Kununurra and Broome.

"These stations will all provide better on-site support to CASA inspectors working in the Torres Strait, Arnhem Land and the Kimberley regions. All four of these workplaces are in the process of being opened or very close to being opened."
Low reading on drink and drugs

RANDOM drug and alcohol tests have uncovered few signs of abuse in the aviation industry.
Body: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority revealed last week that 14,273 alcohol tests had thrown up just seven positives, a hit rate of 0.04 per cent.

More than 4000 drug tests had resulted in 17 positives, a rate of 0.4 per cent.

Mandatory drug and alcohol testing of people working in safety-sensitive jobs -- including aircrew, engineers and air-traffic controllers -- took effect in May after a delay caused by worries about false positives.

CASA chief executive John McCormick told a Senate committee the authority had conducted 1245 of the 4091 tests to that point using a saliva test.
When a subject tested positive, Mr McCormick said an accredited laboratory performed a second test.

"If the second test is positive, it returns to the drug and alcohol management program of the organisation and they then conduct an interview and further research into whether there are over-the-counter medications involved, such as codeine, which could have led to a positive test," he said.

"Then there is an assessment carried out about how the person who is positive is treated, and the person who is negative, of course, returns to work in a safety-sensitive position."

Asked about the program's confidentiality provisions, Mr McCormick said he was unaware of any breaches.

He said subjects were given about an hour's notice and tests had been conducted as far away as Broome and Horn Island.

[Kharon]

Nope: not biting Frank.

Bad Frank, naughty. There exist many strange and wondrous beliefs and creeds in the world; there are acres of floor space dedicated preserving the life functions of people who believe they are the Queen's own corgi (bless), or were Ghengis Khan in a previous life, some hear funny voices, some have strange vices: Gods creatures all. There are zealots and harlots, Laurel and Hardy; hell my Grand Mama has some pages stuck together. Folk believe all kinds of strange nonsense and if a bloke wants to believe any old rubbish, he is constitutionally guaranteed that right. There are of course certain subjects which should be avoided in social situations, like the conversation you had with the March hare, or your all expenses paid trip through the looking glass; and even a mention of the fairies at the bottom of the garden will have 'non-believers' looking askance. Aye, there's nowt so queer as folks. I do however find the eccentrics diverting and mildly amusing; most of the time.

You see, you are in no trouble at all, provided you know stories are just that: some of my most treasured books are pure fiction, some are even pure fantasy; but I know that. It is rather lovely to immerse your mind in a well written tale telling of strange creatures living on different planets with hero's, beautiful heroines, and dastardly villains. When you leave the book world, (or walk out of a theatre) (or turn off the TV) – grim, stark reality awaits. The men in white jackets will only turn up when you start to truly believe that the fiction is indeed 'facts and circumstances'.

Titania - “My Oberon, what visions have I seen!
Methought I was enamored of an ass. AMND 4.1.

[aroa]

memory lane...

thanks for the trip to 2009 and the das's classic upchuck gems, Frank

Let me re-jig Creedy's headline. It should have read..

CAsA boss COWARDLY: CRITICS..

....and "supremo" in what you might ask????.

This is at a time when this ceo didnt have the balls or the integrity of a "ceo" to sack three lying, perjuring idiots aka as SAWIs. I'd define that as cowardly.
"A" class LIARS and FOOLS...just the sort people the GA Industry needs to have to deal with..
Gives you a good indication of the quality of "staff" he believes should be on the public payroll.

Still, CAsA has to minimise any bad pr for itself, cover its ar$k, and imo corruptly protect the evil doers/mates/sons/ rellies, whatever.

And for the record perp#2, J RETSKI is now Team Leader ! ( sic...very sick), in that house of Infamy, Townsville office. FFS !!!

Yep, folks...we're in safe hands.

[thorn bird]

Aroa, mate there are lots of "them" out there.
Rumour of a particular one in AD who thrives on making life impossible by
demanding junkets to foreign climes at the operators expense of course then writting NCN's against non existing reg's, or his opinion on operational matters he is not qualified to interfere in.
Rumour has it he escaped CAsA prosecution in his GA days by agreeing to have no further involvement in Aviation..hmm? seems there is redemption if you join CAsA...."Praise the lord he's been saved"

[Frank Arouet]

Rumour.

DAS: "beware the Ides of March".

[Kharon]

The things you hear in pubs.

TB # 1700 "Rumour of a particular one in AD who thrives on making life impossible by demanding junkets to foreign climes at the operators expense of course then writing NCN's against non existing reg's, or his opinion on operational matters he is not qualified to interfere in."

TB was this the great FAOC issue 'proving flight - from hell'?. One of the BRB occasionally visits Darwin and had us all in stitches last time we had a quiet, cold one; telling us a tall tale about a flight which has become somewhat of a legend up there. As we were having a drink and the yarn well told, no one queried the 'context or facts', thinking it was just for a laugh.

The way we heard it was that an AWI and FOI determined that a proving flight (for an airwork/ charter operation?) would not only provide a nice week end away, on expenses; but, would set a new precedents, being the first time this was ever done (outside of airline operations). This first of it's type 'safety' initiative would have to be a pearler, to impress the boss; and, as there were no costs for CASA to justify, this was deemed a cracking good idea. Personal motivations or spiteful payback were tactfully omitted from the brief (no box to tick; neat eh?). It's an improbable yarn; but just for fun lets do the operational sums.

Uhmm, that's two pilots for 3 days, aircraft ferry WA to Darwin, back to WA. Ground handling fees, customs fees, clearance fees, landing and navigation fees outbound. Dead leg out to Dilli, inbound ground handling fees, paperwork fees, navigation fees, landing fees, oh and lunch all around x 4. Outbound departure fees. Dead leg Dilli to Darwin, inbound navigation fees, customs fees, ground handling and overnight parking fees. A few cold beers and a steak or two all round, accommodation and transport, for aircrew, for two nights. Not to mention or consider that the operator had two men away earning nothing, an aircraft tied up for days earning nothing. No one home to cover revenue flying or even an aircraft to do it in.

Then it's the turn of those assess and issue; you see, it appears that the FOI in Darwin despite being type rated and 'locally' qualified were not acceptable. Nope, only the non type rated 'cat in a hat' from Adelaide could do this 'job' and get it done 'proper'. So, off we go again with the sums, return airfares AD-DN x 2; accommodation x 2, wages for 6 days (2 x 3), expenses, transport and incidentals. All up; a fairly hefty wallop, all charged back to the operator of course.

But they did indeed establish that Dilli is right where it should be; that the GPS could find the requisite 'dot' on the map; that the crew could indeed find said aerodrome, land, do the paperwork, find a fuel man and lunch and even (surprise, surprise) manage to find Darwin again.

Old mate reckons the highlight of the entire trip was the good sense shown (or luck) in avoiding Foreign Affairs department involvement; you see children, the FAD do remember the 'arresting' Chinese affair and the PNG meltdown; it was decided, despite the FOI insistence, that the operator should not to get on the next jet North and give the Indonesians a right royal bollocking for their allegedly (FOI opinion) PP radio procedures and lack of 'understandable English'; huge sighs of relief all around were heard. (Apart from our erstwhile FOI).

Alas, despite a good effort the crew 'failed'. Apparently there should have been a CP delegation North to insist on 'better' English, but not only that, the crew should have been properly supported and qualified, by attending 'strangely accented' English lessons (diploma and everything) before being sent 'international'. The fact that there was a forbidden bottle of water in a cup holder and the FO turned off two switches singularly, rather than 'together' has produced a storm of NCN and all manner of nasty paperwork; related to these and similar, monumental crimes.

True or not, it was a bloody good yarn, and it do beggar belief. But I can see it all, cartoon quality, Aussie FOI bollocking the crap out of the Indonesian General (full fig uniform and sidearm) our home grown civil service looking cool, holding the FOI jacket. Is our aviation industry in good, safe, sane hands?; 'course we are miniscule, just ask your advisors, they know.

Nah, couldn't happen - Toot toot.

[thorn bird]

Frank old mate, dont think there's a knife sharp enough to puncture his ego.
..err sorry armour!

Sunday bloody sunday K, the industry clings by its fingernails above the abyss, while people like that stamp on the fingers.

Question: what do these clowns do when there is no industry?

[aroa]

Birthdaze...

March, Ides of, about to happen. Now that will give me great cause for celebration. End of contract. Finito...and not before time.

Review or Revolution...the ASRR might spell it out for us.

If its a sh*te-wash..it should be the latter.

As for the Dili yarn...its interesting to note how operators concurred...presumably on the basis that if the CASA wallies dont get what they want...the operator doesnt get what he needs to have a business.

Its gross abuse of power, its bull****, and it has to stop. From many other "pub stories" around the traps...I can quite believe it.

It does show that the loonies really are in charge of the CAsasylum.!

[LeadSled]

Nah, couldn't happen - Toot toot.

Folks,
'Tis all true!! Unbelievable you might say --- believe it, nothing surprises me any more.
Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Can we have our ball back, please?

When the Senators get their turn to bat, which they must after the Truss team is bowled out for a miserably low score, the quote below is from the ATSB of the day (BASI) in 1993 and is (IMO) a very succinct appraisal of several important issues.

The investigation found that the circumstances of the accident were consistent with controlled flight into terrain. Descent below the minimum circling altitude without adequate visual reference was the culminating factor in a combination of local contributing factors and organisational failures. The local contributing factors included poor weather conditions, equipment deficiencies, inadequate procedures, inaccurate visual perception, and possible skill fatigue. Organisational failures were identified relating to the management of the airline by the company, and the regulation and licensing of its operations by the Civil Aviation Authority.

The same quote would have applied to Lockhart in 2004 and it's not too long a stretch to apply it to Pel Air. The thing is, (IMO) the change in the ATSB attitude, they fought like hell during Lockhart to make the same point and got stuck with Miller and MOU for their pains, the ANA was side stepped and CASA slowly but surely gained the upper hand. It does not seem be outlandish to suggest that by the time PA came up (or went down, as you like) the ATSB had just given up on an uneven battle, beaten down by money, power and ever increasing political clout of the CASA.

Had the same amounts of time, money, effort and intelligence been put into addressing the issues, would we sitting here waiting for a sensible response to Pel Air; would Lockhart River have occurred, would Hempel be dead?. The problem seems clear enough, but the solution has been patiently waiting since 1993. Hello, anyone home???.

[Sarcs]

Oh so many layers to the PelAir onion…??

While we are waiting for…the Miniscule’s (Government) response to PelAir report, the numerous Estimate QONs & the WLR games to begin...maybe a brief examination of how we’ve got to this abominable, watershed point in time i.e. the PelAir embuggerance...??

Para377 post # 323:

One of the greatest concerns is the power, obstinance and free will of the LSD. Although they purport to be relatively hands off from most non legal decisions made at CASA that simply isn't true. And their powers, authority and decision making is not clear within CASA's charter or structure.

Part One: AAI ‘blame game’ (SOP) according to Jonathon.

Remember this…
…. “I was very closely involved in the development of the MOU and the situation that preceded it. If I could just say something that might put some context for both Senator Fawcett's question and Mr McCormick's answer, it might help a bit. Firstly, the rationale for the new MOU was to create an environment in which, if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA….”

That was a rather interesting insight into the FF LSD rationale for the PelAir shenanigans, especially given the Doc freely admitted that he was one of the main architects of the 2010 MoU...

Passing strange then that nearly 18 months after the release of the 2010 MoU, of which the Doc was a co-author, there was an article published in the Sept/Oct 2011 Flightsafety mag titled.. Accidental Justice – Just culture and criminalisation of accidents..that would seem to put at odds both the evidence given in the Senate inquiry and the subsequent treatment of the DJ since the day of the ditching.

So to some JA quotes from that article…




Note: Keep in mind this was in 2011 and smack bang in the middle of the DJ shafting by Wodger Wabbit & other DIPs.

Moving right along…


Note: Rather past experience/humiliations with cases being chucked out by the CDPP on dubious evidence has led to a preference for admin shaftings via the AAT..

The Doc’s views on ‘just culture'…



And..


And more on the Doc’s preference for shafting pilot miscreants…

Oh and on safety risk mitigation…


The most disturbing part, in regards to the PelAir aberration, is that the Doc (with all these conflicting messages) apparently chaired the ICAO multi-disciplinary task force (reference: pg 13 ‘Part 4: The ICAO response’) that looked into the protection of safety information (& supposedly the criminalisation of aviation accidents)…hmm wonder whether the taskforce members are now fully aware of the PelAir embuggerance…??

More to follow….

[Creampuff]

But DJ wasn't prosecuted.

What is your point about Dr Aleck's stated views?

[Sarcs]

LPSD & a step back in time??

Creamy:

But DJ wasn't prosecuted.
What is your point about Dr Aleck's stated views?

Firstly I know DJ wasn’t criminally prosecuted, if that enforcement approach was ever really an option it would have occurred almost instantaneously.

The early evidence chain that was assimilated (& the circumstantial evidence since), plus the fact that DJ was supposedly operating within a ‘just culture’ that was SMS, CAR217 & FRMS etc compliant, would never have supported such an approach... {Note: Perhaps refer to Kharon’s posts at #1693, #1695 for the disconnect aspects of a working ‘just culture’ vs the PelAir case}

My point(s) in regards to the stated views by Dr Aleck are that they would appear to be in direct conflict with; (a) the 2010 MoU {of which the Doc was a principal architect}; and (b) the first real test case for that MoU which was the (supposedly) parallel investigation of the PelAir Norfolk ditching.

To paint the picture remember this…??






Meanwhile across town FF were realigning their ducks on the pond as per..
Internal CASA email (dated 4 February 2010) ATSB identification of a 'critical safety issue' may have ramification for CASA actions in relation to Mr James, received 10 October 2012;(PDF 913KB)

And by August 2010 the ‘fix’ was well and truly in place & eagerly supported by the MALIU, with his CAIR 09/3, & the Veger proposed AAT statement (see “K” post #1695)…

Internal CASA email regarding the discussion with the ATSB over the content of the ATSB report (dated 18 August 2010), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 1193KB)

{Comment: The following is interesting in light of the fact that CAIR 09/3 was never made publicly available until discovered in a CAsA attachment to their original AAI submission}


I also question whether in DJ’s case that the Doc’s comment..

… “that under Australian legislation, information you provide to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) can’t be used against you in criminal prosecution, civil litigation or administrative actions..”

...is in fact true, especially in light of the Fijian ATC transcript & the infamous 0801 METAR error that was originally (& conveniently) missed (by the FF expert investigators) in the CAIR 09/3 report and in the ATSB final report.

Maybe the stated views of the Doc are a true representation of his beliefs and values in regards to..‘Just culture and criminalisation of accidents’..??

However in the case of the PelAir ditching the other pieces (players) on the chessboard would seem to have differing and diverse opinions on the concepts of ‘just culture’ and the intended purpose/principals of the 2010 MOU…..more to follow..

Comment: Dr Aleck’s statement on page nine…“it’s a criminal offence, a very serious criminal offence, if you don’t report certain matters to the ATSB if required to..” is from personal experience a furphy…

I know of several instances where less than scrupulous Chief Pilots/Operators have threatened sanctions to flightcrew if they submitted factually correct, potentially embarrassing, safety incidents to the ATSB (in some cases the crew have been obliged to not report at all or else). Subsequently on reporting (confidentially) these matters to the relevant authorities no effective investigation nor action has been taken.

[Creampuff]

What information did DJ provide to the ATSB that was then passed on to CASA and used in the administrative action against him?

[Sarcs]

While we continue to wait (for Creamy’s benefit)…a PelAir rehash??

Creamy:

What information did DJ provide to the ATSB that was then passed on to CASA and used in the administrative action against him?

Okay Creamy I’ll bite just a little bit…not so you can pooh bah, from a legal perspective, my naïve layman assumptions but perhaps to expose some more bizarre actions/reactions by FF in the embuggerance saga of DJ…

To begin with I said that I question whether the Doc’s comment was in fact true in the DJ case i.e. I have my suspicions. I know, from a legal perspective, that FF are the masters of intimidation in all matters pertaining to impending or ongoing enforcement action, no matter whether such actions appear to be insanely absurd or over the top for what would normally be minor contraventions/non-compliances of the CAA/CASR...

Therefore Creamy I question??

The veracity of FF’s parallel investigation, especially when it would appear that their interview of DJ (16 December 2009) was given under the false pretext of helping with the accident investigation {CAIR 09/3 reference: 1.5.5 Interview}….

…. “As part of the accident investigation, the Captain was interviewed and questioned on aspects of the flight…”

Note: I also have information, on good authority, that the three individuals who conducted the DJ interview were not (as per FF enforcement manual for the conduct of investigative interviews) recognised Part IIIA investigators and although there was a written ROI, there was no audio recording and DJ was informed that it was informal and could not be used for future legal enforcement action….and yet it would appear that they did??

The fact that the MALIU was operating under the, yet to be signed off on, 2010 MoU (section 4.1 ‘Parallel Investigations’) when it would appear that he should have been still operating under the guidance of the 2004 MoU, is somewhat irrelevant as the MoUs are not essentially legally binding.

Probably what is more important is the FF executive policy in regards to ATSB accident investigations and CAsA involvement with those investigations. The following encapsulates that policy…

Australian Transport Safety Bureau

This year CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) are working on a revised memorandum of understanding (MoU) that sets out safety objectives and underlying values to guide the ongoing relationship between the two organisations. The MoU will maximise aviation safety outcomes and enhance public confidence in aviation safety.

As part of the MoU, CASA reviews and comments on ATSB reports into aspects of aviation safety, including investigations into aircraft accident or incidents. CASA is considered a ‘directly involved party’ who may be either directly involved in the occurrences or their immediate aftermath or who may be affected by the findings. In 2007–08, CASA responded to 204 such reports.

CASA also responded to 41 requests for information, as required under section 32 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. Section 32 requests can require the appearance of people or the provision of documents by a specified date to assist in an investigation.

Under the Air Navigation (Confidential Reporting) Regulations 2006, administered by the ATSB, CASA is required to respond to safety concerns reported through the Aviation Confidential Reporting Scheme (REPCON). REPCON is a voluntary scheme, which enables any person who has an aviation safety concern to report it to the ATSB confidentially. In the event that the concerns are relevant to CASA’s business, these reports are forwarded for comment back to the ATSB. In 2007–08, CASA responded to 23 such reports.

Complementing activities under the MoU is CASA’s Accident Investigation Report Review Board (AIRRB—the Review Board), established in November 2007. The Review Board is a monthly forum, designed to review material released by the ATSB, using CASA’s aviation expertise to provide commentary on draft reports. Advice provided by the Review Board assists the ATSB in developing practical recommendations that can be implemented by industry, ensuring the continuous improvement of aviation safety standards. The Review Board meets monthly and is chaired by the Deputy CEO, Operations.

There was also an exec protocol (which I’m yet to find), which laid down the essential rules of engagement with the ATSB. Basically this stated that on all accident investigations the ATSB had primacy and if in the course of their investigations they noted possible serious and imminent risks to safety through regulatory non-compliance then they were duty bound to pass on this intel to CAsA (something that the bureau never did with the Norfolk ditching investigation), from above post...




Comment: Which begs the question on why (especially with a Special Audit instigated) the, not legally sanctioned, parallel investigation was instigated on the very same day as the ATSB investigation?? Also note the irony & almost psychic IIC comment... "tried to prosecute the probably indefensible and hardly relevant..."

But I diverge…so questions;

Q/ Was the FF interview of DJ part of the bureau investigation and FF were actually part of the hired help (as per attachment A of the 2004 & 2010 MoU)??

Q/ If so wouldn’t that mean that the Fijian ATC transcript was also essentially unavailable for FF use & abuse ( as per attachment C 2004 MoU or D 2010 MoU) till the bureau called in the FF storm troopers to investigate serious concerns about the pilot??

I know, I know, Creamy that from a legal perspective the point is moot but it does make for a fascinating tale (gap filler)…pity there is a fellow pilot’s livelihood and professional reputation hanging on the end of it… ..maybe more to follow??


Addendum: The following extract is from the DJ reply letter to Hoody's Xmas eve '09 NOS...




"Procedural fairness" & "natural justice"...yeah right! Wodger would be laughing over his carrot daiquiri over that one...

[Creampuff]

I preface my comments by reiterating that I consider the regulator’s treatment of DJ, compared with the operator, to be a travesty.

If an aircraft accident occurs, anyone, including anyone in CASA, can ‘investigate’ what happened. However, unless a person has statutory powers of entry, seizure, questioning etc, it may be difficult for the person to obtain key pieces of evidence in a form admissible in a prosecution. But that’s only usually a problem if you want to prosecute someone.

When NGA ditched, the identities of the operator and crew members would have been easily found out by anybody, including anyone in CASA, within about what … a day? PPRuNe would be a good place to start the ‘investigation’…

The regulator would reasonably be concerned about the circumstances that resulted in the ditching, and whether shortcomings in the operator’s systems and procedures and the crew members’ competence contributed. When the regulator finds out that the ditching was an inevitable consequence of fuel exhaustion, the regulator’s gaze would reasonably shift to the crew. (The single biggest cause of commercial GA hull loss is fuel exhaustion, due to shortcomings in fuel planning and management by ….. ATPL holders.)

If the regulator considers a pilot does not reach the requisite standard for fuel planning and management, the regulator is justified in taking administrative action to ensure the pilot regains the requisite standard of competence. There is nothing contrary to or inconsistent with the concept of “Just Culture” in the regulator taking that action.

All of this can happen without CASA saying ‘boo’ to the ATSB, and vice versa, and all of this can happen without utilising a Part IIIA investigator.

We can all be of the opinion that:

- the eventual regulatory focus on NGA’s PIC’s shortcomings alone was a travesty, and

- the number and diameter of hoops that DJ had to jump through to get his licence back were extraordinary and unreasonable,

but no one should be labouring under the misconception that the regulator wasn’t allowed to investigate the accident in the way it did and wasn’t allowed to take any regulatory action against DJ.