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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 25th Feb 2014, 02:26
  #1721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
We want Barnaby.

I've now watched the afternoon estimates session twice, with many pauses and much backtracking; although without the Hansard it's tough to get to the actual critical words, but it's pretty clear from the tapes. Truss needs to take a break.

The McComic attempted filibuster was so full of bollocks, threats, smoke, threats, mirrors, threats, contradictions, threats, bollocks and rubbish, it was a relief when Bill H pulled him up, "that's your lot, now STFU". For that alone, I will always hold Heffernan in high regard. It is unbelievable that the board would allow such a 'speech' (for wont of better) to be made by that director to an educated, cynical audience of Senators, harder to believe that Truss is prepared to be shamed and humiliated in that manner, publicly and on the record. I almost felt a twinge of sympathy for MM, who, like a patient, alert work dog, carefully tended his wayward charges lest a foot was placed so far into a mouth it was unrecoverable. Fielding in the slips is a tough gig and it was a long session for him, pity he's in so much hot water over airports.

Anyway, the CASA first XI were dismissed quickly, despatched to the change rooms to prepare for the next innings when the long awaited response to the Senate inquiry is finally released, to meet it's dreary anti climax. Nice to see that plagiarised crock, the Chambers report used as a club, again; it's to be hoped that the cynical attack of his own troops will haunt what's left of a less than salubrious career. There's a natural justice for you, if you like it Senator.

Next we had the Beaker outfit; that wriggled, squirmed and shuffled like a crew of schoolboys caught with their Willy's out in the bike sheds, but knowing all the while, that one of their Dad's owns the school and there is no way in hell they will get clobbered. The unashamed, belligerent arrogance, the endless round and round of shapeless answers is embarrassing. Even when MM admitted that there was new and significant evidence, they persisted, even when MM went to their rescue, again they stonewalled, even when Beaker was very neatly hoist on his own petard (Bravo DF) still they persisted. You need miniscule support to be that confidently dismissive of quality Senators like Xenophon and Fawcett, who will, with intelligence and commitment persist until the truth, no matter how unpleasant is admitted.

So here we sit, now anticipating the minuscule's response to Senate to be a dud; the TSB report on 'paperwork' protocols to be done only according to the restricted ToR, Canely Vale to be accepted as 'nice' paperwork, despite Senators best efforts. Truss could, in a heartbeat, change all that; but he won't. The simple fact that we must, yet again, listen to the now Beardless Beaker (BB) circular arguments, his off siders belligerence and distractions says nothing here will be used as a lesson for change. Beaker and his bully boy mate stand in the rubble of Australian credibility. Truss didn't do squat last time and history do repeat. The miniscule 's WLR will, in all probability meet the same fate at the stone wall.

Perhaps an appeal to Abbott, 'Dear Sir, please, while we still have an industry give us a Proper Minister; or, appoint DF Junior Minister; or, promote Barnaby Joyce to the post; then at least something positive may happen. The best we can hope for now is that being sufficiently humiliated yesterday is enough excuse for the miniscule to fold his tent and slip quietly away into the night'. L&K the IOS.

Truss seems to be a man stuck in a time warp, unable to deal yet again with the problems he failed to deal with 8 years ago. The same problems are resurfacing, dealing with them in the same way as last time is not an option. Look at the cock up you left behind. Man up or march seem to be reasonable options.

Man of the Match – Mrdak for sheer dogged determination and dedication.

Sponsored by the Ills of Society Barnaby support group. Funding exploratory research into providing Jelly fish with a backbone – like it or not.

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Feb 2014 at 02:45. Reason: Desperately seeking Hansard.
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 04:05
  #1722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Let me google that for you: https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...+hampton&meta=

I have NFI what you're on about (or on).
Creampuff is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 05:15
  #1723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Thumbs up M&Ms hopelessly outplayed but able to hang on for the draw!

Kharon:
So here we sit, now anticipating the minuscule's response to Senate to be a dud; the TSB report on 'paperwork' protocols to be done only according to the restricted ToR, Canely Vale to be accepted as 'nice' paperwork, despite Senators best efforts. Truss could, in a heartbeat, change all that; but he won't. The simple fact that we must, yet again, listen to the now Beardless Beaker (BB) circular arguments, his off siders belligerence and distractions says nothing here will be used as a lesson for change. Beaker and his bully boy mate stand in the rubble of Australian credibility. Truss didn't do squat last time and history do repeat. The miniscule 's WLR will, in all probability meet the same fate at the stone wall.
Perfectly summarised there Mr “K” (& I totally agree with Creamy’s commentary on the M&M team's batting technique) , plus I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that the current miniscule has to be dropped (preferably before the next TEST).

Comment: The miniscule sits on the selection committee & had the perfect opportunity back in September last year for a dawn dropping of the Beaker & DAS and he didn’t take it!

MOM selection was, to my mind, line ball between Senator’s X, DF & Mr M&M (hmm..kind of looks like the red bugger in the ad…)

Couple of things that should not go unnoticed with the individual performances..

DF – That googly at the end went within a whisker of taking out the off stump of M&M. The look on M&M’s face was priceless, you could almost see M&M thinking.. “But..but the miniscule secretly briefed me on the DF’s spin bag of tricks and he never mentioned that he bowls the perfect googly and said he would adhere to the party politic and bowl a on-side line..??

NX – What can I say, as usual, almost faultless line & length and kept his cool even while seething at Beaker being dropped on the fence while on nought. Those sharp in-swingers at the end are what sway me towards the MOtM selection.

M&M- Batted with the superfluous ease of a consummate professional No 3. Has this uncanny knack of knowing when to just play the ball with no more than a straight bat and when to sweep down the legside. Almost come unstuck in the second last over to a DF googly but held his composure till stumps.

So “K” have to agree on your selection for MOM..

Hmm..at 2 all and a draw..the next test will be fascinating..


ps WOW (word of warning) from the IOS: Dear miniscule…shuffle on please while you can, with at least some modicum of dignity…..otherwise it could get very ugly..very quickly…

Last edited by Sarcs; 25th Feb 2014 at 05:48.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 05:55
  #1724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
HooD dunnit

It occurred to me that it would be nice to post some refreshing candour and a proactive approach to some of the problems. Greg Hood (ASA) just grasps the nettle, no bluff, no bull, just straight answers and an open forum on how he and his group have set about the tasks in hand. Have a read or a listen, compare the consummate professional on top of his game to mindless double talk Beaker trots out;

Mr Hood: I think it is fair to say that the incident was of significant concern to us in relation to the fact that there were some procedural issues in relation to the display, for example, on the air traffic controller's screen. She did not have the appropriate map as a visual cue. We have addressed that issue nationally, across the country. Basically, the 737 aircraft started to head towards the active parachuting area and a fellow controller alerted the controller to the fact that that area was active. We took some action for the aircraft to be vectored clear of that area, but it came close to an area in which active parachuting was taking place.

CHAIR: 'Close' being?

Mr Hood: I believe it was 0.2 nautical miles, but I would have to take that on notice.
CHAIR: That is pretty close, is it not?

Mr Hood: Yes.

CHAIR: It would be a bit of a thrill if you were hanging in the air there. Are there sufficient procedures at the other airports? Obviously you have taken some procedural action.

Mr Hood: We have looked nationally at about 38 sites now at which the parachuting takes place. We have standardised the letters of agreement and the procedures that we utilise to separate jet traffic with parachuting airspace.

Mr Hood: That is correct. I think within about 30 minutes of the Virgin aircraft diverting from inbound to Adelaide to Mildura the aircraft requested the weather for Mildura from an area traffic controller and was advised that the weather was broken at 3,400 feet. That may have formed the basis for the aircraft's decision to divert to Mildura. The TAF at the time, the terminal area forecast, had a tempo period, which indicated you required 60 holding for Mildura, but the conditions when requested of ATC were still broken cloud at 3,400 feet.

As we know, the Mildura AWIS, the Aerodrome Weather Information Service, which is jointly owned by the airport, by Airservices Australia and by the Bureau of Meteorology, was unserviceable. The way in which aircraft could have derived updated information about the weather at Mildura could have been via request to ATC through the AERIS, which is the Automatic En Route Information Service. There is one available at Mount William where you dial up the VHF and it provides you with that information. Or in fact through ACARS, which is the airline system. They have their own system where they can request the information from their respective operation centres in Qantas and Virgin to be provided with the latest information.
Cash and no bullshit – Bravo, thank you Mr. Hood; there is hope yet.

I was wondering who was sat next to Dolan, because Dolan kept looking at him before beginning every statement – in Hansard representing the Government was Senator the Honourable David Albert Lloyd Johnston, if you can find the segment below on the U-chewed clips a student of body language and lip reading may, perhaps gain some insight.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you indicate whether you provided advice to the government as to why you thought there was nothing new and significant arising out of the Senate inquiry report, with a view to reopening the investigation or reconsidering your findings?

Mr Dolan: The advice that we provided through the department to the government is decision-making advice for the government, and I am not sure I am in a position to comment on that.

Senator XENOPHON: I am not asking you for the content of that advice. I am asking whether, in fact, you provided advice as to whether you ought to reconsider reopening in any way the ATSB's report into the Pel-Air incident.

Senator Johnston: I do not think you can discuss the content or the inference.

Senator XENOPHON: I am not asking for the content.
Senator Johnston: Well, the inference to be drawn as to what the advice was about. If there was advice, there was advice.

Senator XENOPHON: I am just trying to establish whether there was advice on this particular issue. I am not asking for an inference as to whether there was advice one way or the other. It is as to whether there was any.

Senator Johnston: I think departments provide advice on all manner of issues. I think you can assume that they did.

Senator XENOPHON: I was just trying to establish that from Mr Dolan.
Absolutely awful, but lawful. Stone walls, a hanging ceiling and one tiny window to wriggle though, perhaps the ToR the Canadians are working with may put a light on; but I doubt it. Today I filed with the BRB my version of the Beaker school report from the Canadian cousins, there a bottle on it, for who gets the closest – more later (if the report ever turns up and Commissioner Dolan ever gets done tweeking it).
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 20:54
  #1725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Hoody for 'player of the series'??

Kharon:
It occurred to me that it would be nice to post some refreshing candour and a proactive approach to some of the problems. Greg Hood (ASA) just grasps the nettle, no bluff, no bull, just straight answers and an open forum on how he and his group have set about the tasks in hand. Have a read or a listen, compare the consummate professional on top of his game to mindless double talk Beaker trots out;
Well picked up "K"... But wait there was more from the consummate professional Mr Hood in regards to the YMIA fog debacle :
Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. My only question of substance goes to the incident at Mildura with the two 737s that had the met forecasting issue and then ran short on fuel. We have spoken to ATSB about their internal inquiries. I would be interested to know from Airservices's perspective, as the provider of that information, what you are doing internally to learn from that incident to prevent it occurring.

Mr Hood : I will clarify the last point first. The lateral proximity of the 737 to the parachuting area reduced to 2,100 metres. With regard to the Mildura incident, I think I answered a question last estimates from Senator Xenophon in relation to the fact that our inquiries were continuing into the diversion of two aircraft, a Qantas and a Virgin aircraft, from being inbound to Adelaide, where unforecast fog eventuated, to Mildura. We have undertaken our own internal investigation and we are also an active participant in the ATSB's investigation into that incident.

Senator FAWCETT: So, not only was there the unforecast fog; the conditions at Mildura also deteriorated below landing minima unforecast.

Mr Hood : That is correct. I think within about 30 minutes of the Virgin aircraft diverting from inbound to Adelaide to Mildura the aircraft requested the weather for Mildura from an area traffic controller and was advised that the weather was broken at 3,400 feet. That may have formed the basis for the aircraft's decision to divert to Mildura. The TAF at the time, the terminal area forecast, had a tempo period, which indicated you required 60 holding for Mildura, but the conditions when requested of ATC were still broken cloud at 3,400 feet.

As we know, the Mildura AWIS, the Aerodrome Weather Information Service, which is jointly owned by the airport, by Airservices Australia and by the Bureau of Meteorology, was unserviceable. The way in which aircraft could have derived updated information about the weather at Mildura could have been via request to ATC through the AERIS, which is the Automatic En Route Information Service. There is one available at Mount William where you dial up the VHF and it provides you with that information. Or in fact through ACARS, which is the airline system. They have their own system where they can request the information from their respective operation centres in Qantas and Virgin to be provided with the latest information.
Hoody is all over this incident....line of questioning continues:
CHAIR: So, was the Qantas aircraft landing legal? Did it have sight?

Mr Hood : I am not familiar with precisely what the cloud base and the visibility criteria were. The ATSB investigation will come out with that. In respect of your question, I suppose the point of clarification from the Airservices perspective is: do we continue to provide continuous weather updates to aircraft? In sectors like Mildura you have Mildura, Broken Hill and Swan Hill, for example, all of which you may have aircraft inbound to. As you know, those sites that have a Bureau of Meteorology officer on the ground may be originating multiple special climate statements. Every 5 or 10 minutes you might have the weather changing. That tends to happen a lot with thunderstorm activity and also with changing visibility and fog. What you are likely to be faced with as the air traffic controller is several changing weather scenarios on your particular sector. So, the passing of updated weather information to every aircraft or every destination becomes impractical. At all times it was available to the pilot to request that information of ATC, but specifically we did not provide an update on the weather at Mildura to the two 737s.

In our investigation we had 10 findings and two recommendations {Comment: God forbid not SRs..} . We are certainly acting on the two recommendations, and we are also participating with the ATSB, next month I believe, in the meeting with CASA, the airlines and the ATSB in relation to the clarification of who was responsible. The other thing that we do not have access to is what they received from their own company in terms of ACARS messages from Qantas and/or Virgin.

Senator FAWCETT: Are you able to table those findings and recommendations for the committee?


Mr Hood: Certainly, but not today. I am happy to provide the Senate a copy with our internal investigation.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.
{Comment: See how easy it is when your armed with the known facts, have nothing to hide and are proactively seeking to address the highlighted significant safety issues...}

But wait there is still more...
Senator XENOPHON: I have some supplementary questions directly on the Mildura incident. The ATSB, in its interim report into this incident, state in part that information about the actual weather conditions at Mildura was not available to the crew from the Automated Weather Information Service, AWIS, as the aircraft approached Mildura'. It goes on to say that the AWIS link from the automated weather station is a very high frequency omnidirectional radio range, which was operated by Airservices Australia, was unserviceable. Does Airservices agree with this statement by the ATSB?

Mr Hood : As I said, the ownership of the AWIS sits with three parties. The Weather Information Service itself sits with the Bureau of Meteorology. The line that takes it from the bureau to the navigation aid belongs to the airport and we own the navigation aid which broadcasts the information. The navigation aid, the NDB, was out of service and had been NOTAMed five days prior.

Senator XENOPHON: What was unserviceable? Was it the automatic weather station or the omnidirectional radio range link?

Mr Hood : My understanding is that the non-directional beacon, the navigation aid which broadcasts the weather, was out of service.

Senator XENOPHON: That is the responsibility of Airservices?

Mr Hood : That is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: How long had that link at Mildura been non-operational?

Mr Hood : My understanding is that it was NOTAMed five days prior to the incident. Whether it was previously NOTAMed I would have to take on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: If you could. Is it operating now?

Mr Hood : That navigation aid has been decommissioned. The AWIS at Mildura is now owned by the airport and was commissioned, broadcasting on a VHF frequency, in mid-November. My understanding is that it is operating.

Senator XENOPHON: You do not have responsibility for it anymore?

Mr Hood : That is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: You used to but not now?

Mr Hood : It used to be a joint responsibility. Now the airport owns and operates the facility in conjunction with the Bureau of Meteorology.

Senator XENOPHON: Finally, is there any oversight or regulatory framework to ensure that weather information can be accurately transmitted to crews considering the many parties that seem to be responsible?

Mr Hood : The Aeronautical Information Publication, the pilot's bible in relation to how information is disseminated, is basically an interpretation of the rules for laymen. One of the recommendations made in our investigation is that it needed some clarification, specifically in relation to the unavailability of an AWIS and what the air traffic controller and the pilot's responsibilities are if the AWIS is unserviceable.

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you.
Here's a thought?? Perhaps Beaker should consider transposing, with additional info, the ASA investigation report for the bureau's report, could save a mountain of taxpayers green?? Oh that's right it has been done before and look where that ended up... And we have the small problem that ASA is a DIP to the incident so their ultimate objectivity would come under question...

Still top job by Hoody, it is good to see that he is not relying on the proposed Beaker love in to find out all the, politically correct, obfuscated facts/findings..

Maybe the miniscule should consider offering Beaker's position to Hoody, he'd certainly go a long way to restoring some credibility to the ATsB (make that s a big S again..)...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 03:43
  #1726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
Grrr No, leave Hoody alone

Sarcs said:

Maybe the miniscule should consider offering Beaker's position to Hoody...
Hoody is right where he needs to be right now - changing the management culture of AsA. Just let him get on with it, since AsA as an operational service provider is a much greater risk than Beakersville

Beakersville needs its own solution, starting with abandoning it as a sinecure for public servants needing lateral arabesques from their last post of stardom
scrubba is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 18:27
  #1727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
For the want of a shoe etc.

Scrubba # above "Hoody is right where he needs to be right now –etc.
Good point, agreed. Hood was mentioned only to highlight the stark differences between department attitudes. It's timely and 'proper' that ASA have someone to straighten out the mess left behind. The only cloud I can see is that of fiscal embuggerance; ASA need to spend some dollars. There is an example of some of the problems Mrdak, Staib and Hood have to deal with. See – Hansard - Turn 60 - pages 74 to 76. This Edwards joker is banging on about a department not making as much profit, not about how ASA can recover. Not about how can we sort out the situation where an event like this– Airservices loose two A330 – (Ben Sandilands), can occur while not only does the Senator expect ASA to fix that up and still make 'more' profit. Makes you wonder, don't it?

Senator EDWARDS: Being a good business operator, when I heard that the division had made $62 million last year I said, 'How do we get into that business?' I found out we could not, because it is a monopoly. So, what we have now is a forecast of a 30 per cent drop in net profit to that division. I am sure the Treasurer will be very interested to know that and the reasons why. So, let's pre-empt him and see if we can find out why.
Read that one again, carefully. What is this man saying about himself?

Senator EDWARDS: With all due respect to what I thought was going to be a short answer for Senator Sterle so that he could get on with his questions, could you actually flesh out—you just have short notes there—what changes in accounting principles have led you to this on all of those? Can you provide a reasonably fulsome explanation as to those points which you have made with me as to why you are going to be short on last year's result? Since you have given me increased revenues, you may quite rightly be trying to draw a correlation between increased revenues meaning that more people on the ground had to do more work. As a proportion of wages spent to profit earned from last year, are we going to be in an appropriate performance quartile or area that you are happy or not happy with? As chief executive officer you are accountable for profitability.
Senator EDWARDS: I am not trying to jump in on this one, but we do need an explanation. If you could provide a fulsome report in a timely manner and not just prior to the next estimates as to what it is, we will have a discussion. It will be very evident to you if there is some line item in there that is going to create a problem, and I am sure you will be able to address it. But obviously now that we have tackled the issue, let us get the answers as to why that is showing up the way it is. A 30 per cent fall in profit without an explanation out there in private land would be a significant event.
Nope, Hoody can have that job. How would you like to deal with the arrogance and greed on display in the quoted paragraphs. The same idiot would be howling the bloody roof down if 'his' aircraft had a close call one dark and stormy. Air Traffic Control is not a cash cow for politicians to milk, it's an essential service, the management of which has become a hell of a mess. So perhaps the gummint will just have to bite the bullet and withstand a loss of 10 million or so, just in case we bump a couple of aircraft together; saving a few pennies here and few pennies there. Why should the ASA be driven to make a profit and why should they be browbeaten about a profit loss? Shee-it, an inquiry into a mid air will cost a lot more than the loss of a profit percentage for a couple of years; just while the boys and girls sort it all out.

“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,
For the want of a horse the rider was lost,
For the want of a rider the battle was lost,
For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”
(Benjamin Franklin).
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 21:00
  #1728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
"Why should the ASA be driven to make a profit and why should they be browbeaten about a profit loss? Shee-it, an inquiry into a mid air will cost a lot more than the loss of a profit percentage for a couple of years; just while the boys and girls sort it all out."

Kharon, "never a truer word was spoken", forgot who said that.
But then why does CAsA have to make a profit? They can write rules that nobody understands, then manipulate those rules to develop an income stream from services that provide nothing useful to the "client"except grief and wasted time and does nothing that improves "Safety",
Why was essential public infrastructure like our airports gifted to a "colourful" bank to manipulate into a billion dollar turnover a year business that pays absolutely no tax and spends as little as possible to improve the infrastructure for those that use it? other than those who wish to park their cars of course.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 23:31
  #1729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Sunday cogitation: Departures & arrivals??

TB:
Why was essential public infrastructure like our airports gifted to a "colourful" bank to manipulate into a billion dollar turnover a year business that pays absolutely no tax and spends as little as possible to improve the infrastructure for those that use it? other than those who wish to park their cars of course.
Other than the 2nd Sydney Airport 30 year debate, that Thorny briefly touches on (above), the subject of airports is quite often the forgotten third cousins in the yin and yang of aviation safety regulation in this country. However it is an area that does cause considerable public debate and interest in local and regional communities, especially when the local airport quite often provides the umbilical cord connection, to the outside world, that is essential for the economic growth and prosperity of these communities.

In recent times organisations such as the AAA, ALGA and RAAA are starting to become more and more vocal about concerns for the financial impost of, what they essentially feel, is over regulation (red tape) governing how these local/regional airports can be legally used. Perhaps a recent article from Australian Aviation best describes these issues: Regional airports under pressure – AAA

There is also the other impost on regional airport (& operators) due to security screening imposed when a local airport wishes to expand/improve their airport to introduce or expand RPT operations, quote from AAA CEO Caroline Wilkie in the Aviation Business article: Australia's regional aviation sector cries out for help

“…There are areas such as Commonwealth-mandated airport security screening requirements that should be looked at more closely (for) cost efficiencies while supporting a sensible risk-based approach to aviation security,..”

Then there is the issue (that has been the bugbear of Senator Fawcett’s ever since his first foray into Senate Estimates back in 2011) of the government leasing arrangements (of what used to be government owned & administered airports) and the possible aviation safety implications of current/future developments of these airports. It should therefore be encouraging for organisations such as the Archerfield & Moorabbin tenancy groups that Senator Fawcett, despite being now part of the government, has not lost any of his passion on the subject of preserving airports (& operators) and keeping safe the operating environment around these airports: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 24/02/2014 Estimates - Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

"...Senator FAWCETT: There is another element to the very fine comments Mr Doherty made about preserving airports and it goes back to the lease that the Commonwealth signed either with local governments or with people who purchased the lease, and there are a number of different bodies around Australia. That goes to the intent of maintaining the airport basically with, as a minimum, its existing infrastructure, functions and capabilities and the potential to grow. Have I characterised that correctly in terms of the intent of that lease?

Mr Doherty: In broad terms, there are provisions relating to the contingent operation of airports. Of the examples you gave, there are actually two broad categories. One was the airports which were transferred into local ownership under the ALOP where there is a deed which provides for the continued operation of those sites as airports. For the more limited group of federal leased airports, there are provisions to require continued operation.


Senator FAWCETT: My question goes to the treatment of tenants, whether they be at the Archerfield, Bankstown type airfields or whether they be at ones that are now owned by local government, or in some cases local government has actually sold those on to other parties. You are aware of the AAT case with Archerfield and the longstanding complaints of tenants at Bankstown; we are now starting to get some substantiated evidence coming from tenants in airfields that are owned by third parties, so they have been in local government ownership and have passed on. I am just wondering, given your comments here about preserving airfields and not allowing a degradation of capability, what protections is the Commonwealth looking to try and enforce in those heads of power represented by either the deed or the lease, because at the moment we are seeing GA operators, particularly, being squeezed out of a number of airports?


Mr Doherty: Yes, the future development of the secondary airports under the federal leased airports group is an area that we are looking at and are very conscious of. There is a provision in the lease which requires the continued maintenance of the airport at operating standard. There is a provision in the lease which talks about the development of the airport and has a range of factors involved, including commercial operation, but also the hope for continued development of the site. We take those into account in two main ways, one is in relation to the regulatory decisions under the Airports Act, be that master plan decisions or major development proposals, which come through for agreement. Historically, the challenge there has been around the balance between non-aeronautical development of land not currently required for aeronautical uses on those sites and preserving the capacity for aeronautical use.


The other major avenue is through the monitoring of the lease arrangements, and we have an annual lease review which goes through in a systematic way the compliance with the lease provisions, so the issue would be addressed at that stage as well.


Senator FAWCETT: So, for a leaseholder on an airport that was in local government ownership under the deed and has now transferred to a third party, if a GA operator who has signed a lease for—I think it was 258 square metres of land—is told by the owner that they cannot renew it unless they now include unusable land around them to increase it to nearly 800 metres, and hence a significant increase in their cost because they are paying per square metre, or they will be evicted, is that kind of conduct something that the department is comfortable with or is that something that, as the holder of the original head of power of that deed, you would be seeking to protect those leaseholders given that they have no other option to go and run an aviation business.


Mr Doherty: The example you are talking about is not within the Airports Act structure, but under the ALOP deeds. In that case, our area of intervention has been much more limited and has been preserved at maintaining the operation of the site as an airport. In relation to behaviour by the airport operator, which could be abuse of its position of power as the operator about the terms of commercial arrangements on the lease, we would see that more as a matter for the ACCC to operate and not something that we would regularly be involved in under the deed arrangements.


Senator FAWCETT: My understanding is that the deed required owners to continue to provide fair and equitable access to the business and their operations as long as they met their payments and they complied with all regulations. If an airport owner said that somebody who wanted to start up a flying school in a region where there was no ability to learn to fly, is it your expectation that the company should be able to do that or is it your expectation that the owner could say, 'No, we do not want a flying school at the airport.'


Mr Doherty: I am not sure that that is an area that we could get into under the provisions of the deed, to that level of detail.


Senator FAWCETT: Could you take that on notice? Because my reading of the deed indicates that if they are compliant with the aviation regulations and they are meeting the terms of payment for their lease that they should be able to run a bona fide aviation operation at an airfield.


Mr Wilson: We will take on notice the issue associated with our powers associated with the deed in a specific case as you have indicated. I would not like to answer it without actually going back and looking at the deed.

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to take that on notice. What I am also putting on notice is that I am concerned about the future viability of the GA sector at a number of airports where, for commercial reasons, they are being squeezed by the owners and, given that, unlike any other business where you cannot just relocate down the block, the airport is the only place you can run your business, that appears to be unconscionable conduct in flying against the head lease or deed under which those airports were actually devolved from Commonwealth ownership..."

Remember that the Senate sits tomorrow, so will monitor to see if & when the AAI report gets a miniscule (govt) response...more to follow K2
Sarcs is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2014, 06:33
  #1730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Angel Here’s a thought miniscule..??

While we wait for the AAI report response to be tabled, the WLR panel to brief the miniscule, the TSBC tick-a-box review report and eventually Mr FAA’s knock on the door (re Ben’s piece: Australia suppresses criticism of its aviation safety body)…..

Kharon:
Stone walls, a hanging ceiling and one tiny window to wriggle though, perhaps the ToR the Canadians are working with may put a light on; but I doubt it. Today I filed with the BRB my version of the Beaker school report from the Canadian cousins, there a bottle on it, for who gets the closest – more later (if the report ever turns up and Commissioner Dolan ever gets done tweeking it).
Perhaps an option for the miniscule, which may temporarily appease Mr FAA, could be to bring in the ICAO audit team from 2004 for a revisit (audit review) of the ATsB. There would certainly be no manipulated ToRs as the procedure for audit is all laid out in the previous 2004 report…

“….2. OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE MISSION
2.1 The audit was carried out following the standard auditing procedures provided for in ICAO Doc 9735 — Safety Oversight Audit Manual with the objective of reviewing the relevant activities conducted by the ATSB to determine whether the SARPs of Annex 13 and associated guidance material were being followed. The objective was also to offer advice, as applicable, to the ATSB in implementing these provisions.
2.2 The ICAO audit team reviewed the ATSB compliance with the SARPs set out in Annex 13 and other relevant procedures, and adherence to guidance material and relevant safety-related practices in general use in the aviation industry, as referred to in such material. The ICAO audit team also reviewed whether the ATSB had the organizational structure and the legal status necessary to carry out its obligations.
2.3 The ICAO audit team also reviewed the ATSB’s regulatory provisions, examined records and documentation and conducted interviews, in order to make its findings and recommendations, on the basis of safety oversight audit general requirements, as follows…”

Basically put there is no need for Beaker's ToRs and dodgy, non-transparent agreements, as it is all nicely laid out (transparent) within the ToRs (attachment A) of 2004 and the audit/review is guided by ICAO Doc 9735 — Safety Oversight Audit Manual.

{Comment: Hmm…I wonder why Beaker didn’t think of this, after all ICAO are the experts on such things and the original team would only require a small refresher to come up to speed on the last decade’s err…shenanigans??}

Refresher and ICAO team CV for the miniscule; here is the report from the ICAO team of 2004: ICAO AUDIT REPORT OF THE ATSB (Canberra, 31 May to 4 June 2004)

It is interesting to note, in that report, that some of the recommendations/NCNs are still apparently outstanding or response actions have only fairly recently been updated, example (reference: pg 33 Appendix 4-3):
FINDING:

The ATSB’s policy is to place the primary focus on fare-paying passengers and to investigate all fatal accidents (unless they involve sport aviation). However, accidents that are considered to have little potential benefit for prevention may not be investigated in detail. In such cases, the ATSB would not necessarily attend the scene, conduct an in-depth investigation or produce an extensive report.

RECOMMENDATION:

The ATSB should investigate all accidents as defined by Annex 13. The depth of such investigations should be at least to a level where it is evident that no further enhancement of aviation safety can be achieved.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROPOSED BY THE ATSB:

This recommendation is related to the earlier recommendation at Appendix 2-2 and the ATSB response at 2-2 is also relevant. The ICAO audit recommendation that all accidents should be investigated at least to a level where it is evident that no further enhancement of aviation safety can be achieved has significant budgetary implications that are outside of the control of the ATSB. While many accidents are essentially repetitive and involve little new safety learning and diminishing returns in their investigation, it is rarely possible to be so absolute as to assess that no further enhancement of aviation safety can be achieved by further investigation.

The ATSB will, before the end of August 2004, advise the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Departmental Secretary and the Department of Finance and Administration of the audit recommendation and its budgetary implications.

ACTION TAKEN BY THE ATSB:

The ATSB formally briefed the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services on the final ICAO Audit and its recommendations by Minute dated 22 October 2004. This Minute was also the formal mechanism for briefing the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) Secretary and Deputy Secretaries. The ATSB briefed the Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA) at Division Head level on the ICAO Audit with a focus on recommendations CE-3/02 and CE-5/03 on 23 November 2004 via the Department of Transport and Regional Services’s Chief Financial Officer. On 21 December 2004 the Department of Finance and Administration responded that any additional funding was a matter in the first instance for the Minister's consideration against other priorities in his portfolio. DOFA stated also that only proposals with specific authority from the Cabinet or the Prime Minister were eligible for budget consideration.

In 2007-08 the ATSB was funded to undertake approximately 80 new aviation safety investigations of which about 30 are of the more comprehensive variety. Choice of the 80 from approximately 8000 accidents and incidents reported was based on published selection criteria. In addition, for the financial years 2007-08 to 2009-10 the ATSB was provided with additional budget funding to assist Indonesia with its transport safety improvement program.

STATUS: Completed (monitoring).
Well this is helpful miniscule…..(from above) it would appear that the audit report ATSB actions etc would have had to come across your desk from time to time, not to mention that the former miniscule (JA) surely would have briefed you on where it was at in ’05??

So it is a good fit (miniscule) for the Beaker TSBC review charade conundrum, perhaps you’ve already considered it??

I suppose the other way you could go (miniscule) is to personally request the TSBC consider using the 2004 ICAO audit team’s ToRs for their review and plead that they may also consider carrying out the review in reference to ICAO Doc 9735 — Safety Oversight Audit Manual , might help you save face and bring some veracity to the subject…forever helpful L&K K2 (Sarcs)
Sarcs is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 18:42
  #1731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
February Hansard page 69- 70.

Sarcs# 1786 –" So it is a good fit (miniscule) for the Beaker TSBC review charade conundrum, perhaps you’ve already considered it??
TSBC review, like the 2004 audit is a non starter; but it would be unfair to accuse the Canucks of being part of the charade though. The TSBC have been given a brief which, no doubt they will scrupulously adhere to. The Senate are onto the game and the narrow ToR are exposed to reveal, once again, the depths to which our safety agencies are prepared to sink, to ensure their pre determined outcomes. Two options; we could save the dollars and let Beaker write his own report, because if he or MM are writing the ToR the result is a foregone conclusion. Option two would be the honest approach and have an independent audit of the Pel Air fracas; no holds barred and no homemade ToR; that may get closer to a true picture. But I think the Senate know this, their job is to reveal the cunning plan. The only slightly pregnant question is of course; what will/can the Senators do, now they have the knowledge? Complicit, negligent or proactive, that is the question the Senate must publicly answer.

The answer is pure easiology, lets have a 2014 ICAO audit of ATSB done by the heavy mob; only this time, lets act on it – value for money etc.

Mr Dolan: The three commissioners determined that it was their responsibility to make that assessment and we did not see any need or possibility to defer that decision to someone else.

What we did do, quite deliberately, was ask a counterpart organisation, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, to benchmark our investigation methodology against their investigation methodology and to review three of our investigations in light of that, essentially against what the TSB would have done as against what we did, and to give us an independent report on the results.

It is entirely possible that as a result of that there will be new and significant information. If there is, the commission will reopen the investigation. (My bold)
Mr Mrdak: I think going back to my earlier answer about the integrity of the process, the terms of reference that have been given to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the way in which they are looking at that and the advice to government from the ATSB on that process will underpin the government's response when that is tabled in terms of the very questions you are asking. (My bold)
Senator XENOPHON: You would understand the disquiet in the aviation community that the ATSB was effectively Caesar judging Caesar. The commissioners had to make a determination as to whether they did a good job or not in terms of their previous report that was the subject of scathing criticism by a Senate inquiry. But you acknowledge that? (My bold)
Senator FAWCETT: One of the things Mr Dolan said to us earlier was that the TSB was going to give them a draft so that they could look at issues of fact. We have just had a prolonged discussion between Senator Xenophon and Mr Dolan around 'new and significant'. The facts, as came out on paper very clearly before the Senate committee was that there was new information—and I particularly refer to the Chambers report. It was significant, because the ATSB report said that the regulatory system that was in place did not need investigation and yet the new information highlighted that CASA itself knew that there were significant deficiencies in that which had not been highlighted. So, the evidence in black and white said that it was new and significant. Our concern is that if ATSB is given the role of deciding what is factual and if there are factual errors in the TSB report, if TSB say that this is new and significant and it should have been investigated. What we have just heard from Mr Dolan yet again is that the ATSB considers it completely within their remit to say, 'We are the ones legally charged with deciding if it is new and significant. We decide that is factually incorrect. Send it back to the TSB with an amendment.' That hardly inspires confidence in the aviation community in Australia. (My bold)
Mr Mrdak: I did read the way you have taken that from what Mr Dolan has said here today or previously in relation to the nature of the Canadian draft report. I would not lead you to the conclusion that you have reached, I do not think. Knowing the way in which these processes are undertaken and the integrity of the agency involved, I do not think you could lead to the conclusion you are reaching from the ATSB being asked to fact check a document. I do not think that is the way the Canadian authorities would ever see that taking place.
Senator XENOPHON: I understand that, but is that also the subject of review by the TSB?
Mr Dolan: The TSB is looking at the process by which the ATSB undertook this investigation, and that material is relevant to their consideration. I would not expect to be taken chapter and verse through the process that the TSB is using to meet their terms of reference. I am happy—and I am not sure whether it has been done previously—to supply the terms of reference to the committee to give some context as to what is actually being undertaken by the Canadians.(My bold)
You can fool some of the people, some of the time. To paraphrase WC Fields; Muppets are like elephants. I like to look at 'em, but I wouldn't want to own one.
Kharon is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 22:19
  #1732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Nick's adjournment speech 04/03/14

Kharon:
TSBC review, like the 2004 audit is a non starter; but it would be unfair to accuse the Canucks of being part of the charade though.
My mistake "K" I wasn't accusing the Canucks of being part of the charade, perhaps I should have said the 'Beaker TSBC charade'..

Yesterday in the Senate Senator X made a speech which surprisingly kind of flows from Kharon's last post..

Nick's take on Beaker...

"...I do not understand how Mr Dolan's position in the ATSB is tenable..."??

On the Beaker.....TSBC charade...

"....It is hard to understand how the Canadian TSB can produce a useful or meaningful view without digging further than the surface documents. This should not be a tick and flick exercise. The people involved in this incident—the pilot, Dominic James; the co-pilot; the patient and her husband on the aeromedical flight, Mr and Mrs Currall; the doctor; and the nurse, Karen Casey—have had their lives permanently affected. Their suffering has been significant—in particular, Ms Casey, who cannot go back to her work as a nurse. They all deserve better. The Canadian TSB needs to be given carte blanche to examine papers, to interview witnesses and interested parties, and to release its report to the public. The fact that it has not done so to date concerns me greatly. There has been more than enough pushed under the carpet in this case. My fear is that the Canadian TSB may unwittingly be involved in what could end up being a whitewash on behalf of the ATSB..."

And finally Nick on missed opportunities if this debacle is allowed to be..."pushed under the carpet"...

"...It is time to accept the mistakes that have been made, because without accepting those mistakes we cannot learn; and, if we cannot learn, then we cannot change, and that would be a tragedy in every sense of the word. No lives were lost in the Pel-Air incident due to the great skill of the pilot and some good luck. But unless these systemic issues—a lack of transparency, a lack of regulatory oversight, a desire to protect instead of expose—are addressed we cannot guarantee that no lives will be lost in the future, and that would be the greatest tragedy of all..."

[YOUTUBE]Senator Xenophon adjournment speech 04/03/2014 - YouTube

Hansard link

No comment required...


Addendum: DF votes against NX's DM CAO 48.1...

Shock horror you say...read on where he explains why?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (13:08): I rise to speak on Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion against the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013. I will first correct the record. There was dialogue in the previous government, and I commend Minister Albanese, as he was then, for his willingness to engage. In fact, I remember attending a meeting with Senator Xenophon, with then Minister Albanese's staff, with Minister Truss's staff, with representatives of the Australian International Pilots Association and with CASA where we talked through this issue at length. At the end of that meeting, the position that was adopted—certainly by me—was that the disallowance should not be supported. Minister Truss's position was the same. So the comment by the opposition that we have now changed our position is not correct, and I make that point before addressing the issue at hand in any more substance.

I commend Senator Xenophon for his interest in and commitment to the aviation industry in Australia. We have worked very collaboratively on a number of aspects around regulation and other things that affect the viability and safety of aviation. I again put on record my appreciation for the engagement of both the then minister and the current minister around this issue. I have not personally changed my position from when we were dealing with this in opposition for the reason that where this brings us to is safer then where we were. I acknowledge that there are still outstanding issues, as Senator Xenophon has highlighted. But, as he has also highlighted, some of those issues leave us in much the same position as we were in previously. The previous position may not have been ideal, but we are in no worse a position now. Given that in net terms there is an improvement, I think it is appropriate to adopt those changes. I will go through why I take that position in a little more detail.

I will talk firstly about the broad context of regulatory reform and then come in a little more detail to 48.1. The regulatory reform process, as anyone engaged with the aviation industry in Australia knows, has been long and drawn out to the point of being dysfunctional because of the length of time and the different strategic approaches that CASA has taken to the reform process, particularly when it comes to the engagement of industry. I have long been an advocate of the approach taken by the former director, Mr Byron. He argued that industry, as the current subject matter experts in a particular area of operation, are probably best placed to know what will work for them and their sector.

Despite the fact that there are some rogue operators in the aviation industry, whether they be people in workshops or people operating airlines or charter companies, the vast majority of operators have invested hugely, in personal terms and in terms of their shareholders. They have a huge incentive to make sure their operations are safe because, if they have an accident, gaining insurance or contracts—particularly if they are operating in a contract environment within the resources sector—becomes almost impossible. Once an airline has an accident, re-attracting customers is difficult. So people have a huge incentive to get it right. I am a great believer that industry should be leading in the development of both regulations and standards, in conjunction with the regulator, and that only if there is a safety case that the regulator can prove should the regulator discard the industry's position.

I am aware that CASA's point of view is that the drafting of 48.1 involved working groups with industry and scientific experts, but I would have to say that CASA's track record of engagement with industry has not been wholesome. On many occasions it appears to have been a one-way process where they might have listened but did not take due regard or, in some cases, they just transmitted what they were planning to do and called it consultation. There are examples where it has worked well, but there are many where it has not. This is one area where we need to fundamentally reform the process, not only at the drafting stage but also, importantly—as Senator Xenophon has highlighted—once a regulation comes into force, because there is often very little appetite to revisit it for an extended period.

As we look at our regulatory reform process we see that not only does industry need to have a stronger voice up front in setting the regulations and the manual of standards that goes with them but also there needs to be a review mechanism where, if there are outstanding issues, there is an opportunity—a framework—for industry to have quick and effective remedy to them. Senator Xenophon mentioned the expert panel that was discussed at the meetings we had last year with then Minister Albanese's staff, Minister Truss's staff, CASA and the industry body. This concept, situated in a more structured framework, is something that I am very much pushing for as part of the review of aviation safety and regulation. I am also in discussions with the current minister's office about this concept in regard to CAO 48.1. I think the review that is being conducted by David Forsyth has terrific potential to reform how industry and the regulator engage. A key part of that—and we have seen that legislation has just been introduced in the parliament by the government—is reforming the role of the board so that we have people on the board with aviation experience.

That board's role really needs to be one of governance, as opposed to hands-off oversight, so that they are setting the strategic direction for the regulator. That strategy would go to the culture of the regulator, whether it is a big 'r' regulator—a policeman with a big stick—or further along the spectrum towards an educator and supporter. That balance in the middle needs to come through a strategic decision. So, regardless of who is the director of the regulator, we should see a consistent approach that industry can plan for and engage with—an approach that will keep the industry not only safe but viable in terms of the cost bases they have to meet. And there are many costs associated with changing or rejecting regulation.

That brings me to CAO 48.1 and this disallowance motion. As I have stated, overall it is safer, and in the areas where there are points of contention we are no worse off than we were. If we were worse off in significant areas then clearly there would be a case to reject the regulation. But, if we are no worse off and in other areas we are better off, then the travelling public and the industry are better served in finding a way to effectively and quickly review the regulation and modify those areas of concern.

Senator Xenophon mentioned the window of circadian low. Whilst I have never been a long-haul pilot, I have had many years of flying what we call reverse-cycle operations, where we fly by night—in the military's case, often using night-vision equipment, which brings fatigue issues of its own—so I am well aware of, and I am concerned by, the fact that we have had a grandfathering of that 5 am start point in these regulations. But if we are no worse off than we were before we should review that, as opposed to rejecting the whole package out of hand.

The position that I am taking on this—it is the government's position—is not to support the disallowance, but I am working with the minister's office. That is partly because many industry players, since the order was introduced in April 2013—with a transitional window to 2016—have already invested in changing how they work to meet the new regulations. And, as I have said, change does not come cheaply to industry players. Not only are we going a step backwards in safety if we adopt this disallowance but we are disadvantaging those industry players who have invested in adopting the new regulations. I am seeking to make sure that we have, in a very timely manner, the opportunity for the concerned parties in the industry—I know the Virgin Independent Pilots Association and the Qantas group have raised the concerns of, predominantly, long-haul pilots—to help select subject-matter experts who can form this independent panel to review the specific areas of concern. We would then have an independent umpire to bring a recommendation back to the minister so that he can work with the regulator to address those concerns in a timely manner.

Obviously, I cannot speak for the review being led by David Forsyth, nor the recommendations that they will bring forward, but, having met with many players from the maintenance, manufacturing, engineering and operations areas of the industry, I am aware that one of the critical things that we need is a system whereby industry can have a timely remedy to decisions of the regulator that have a material impact on their business and where the safety case is disputed by industry. Whilst, hopefully, the remedy for this will not necessarily be part of the broader regulatory reform and a change of structure, it may well be a test case of how that could work. That may then lead to ideas around how we adopt the broader regulatory system and provide an opportunity for industry to have that timely remedy.

The government will not be supporting the disallowance. I maintain the same position I have had since I was in opposition: in net terms we would do better to adopt the new 48.1. But there is a need to have that independent panel to work with industry and the regulator to review the points of concern and come up with an agreed position so that we can quickly amend that part of the regulation that needs changing.
The dynamic duo , I believe, are not going anywhere just yet..

Last edited by Sarcs; 6th Mar 2014 at 12:53.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 20:22
  #1733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The games afoot.

IOS super star – Sandilands – on Plane talking makes a couple of very notable points. It's worth the reading time. Steve (ALAEA Fed Sec) AOC protection and public safety are face cards and priceless.
Which raises the problem of Anthony Albanese as the Minister responsible for CASA, the safety regulator, and the ATSB, the supposedly independent safety investigator. Albanese is an embarrassment in relation to the on going scandal of the Pel-Air crash investigation, in which he failed to respond, as he had promised, to the detective work done by a Senate committee which found that CASA had withheld from the ATSB an internal document showing it had been so deficient in its oversight of the operator that a preventable accident had occurred.

It further found evidence that implied that the ATSB had complied with pressure from CASA to frame the pilot of the crashed jet with all the responsibility, and failed to consider all of the safety factors, nor even report on them in the form and detail required under international ICAO rules.

The entire Pel-Air scandal shows that CASA was not just incompetent but quite possibly in breach of Commonwealth law in suppressing information relevant to an air crash investigation.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 22:23
  #1734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Point of order!

Ben also puts the miniscule on notice..
The scandal is also a test for the Coalition’s deputy PM and Transport Minister, Warren Truss, who is understood to be making a response to the Senate committee findings before the current parliamentary session ends later this month.

Ominously, Truss has allowed his own initiative, the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which is now underway, to suppress public submissions which are highly critical of CASA by not publishing them at a single accessible reference point.
But to the QWON that Shorty asked..:
Qantas

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister of Australia, who I am sure is proud of the enviable safety record of Qantas, the world's safest airline. Does the Prime Minister accept that the enviable safety record of Qantas is in no small part due to the professionalism, the hard work, the commitment and the expertise of its Australian based maintenance crews?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:06): I absolutely accept that Qantas has a fine safety record, perhaps the best safety record in the world. Obviously I am very grateful to the workers who are responsible for that. I am proud of them, as I am proud of Qantas. But Virgin is a safe airline as well. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting to this House that Qantas is safe and other airlines are not? What is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting here? Is he suggesting that the Qantas Sale Act is somehow responsible for Qantas's safety? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting?

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: There will be silence while we hear the Prime Minister's answer. The question has been asked. The answer is being given.

Mr Shorten: Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance: on a number of occasions, the Prime Minister keeps asking questions and I am happy to answer them.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. There is only one relevance allowed on each question.

Mr ABBOTT: The Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that it is the Qantas Sale Act that is responsible for the Qantas safety record. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that without the restrictions that exist under the Qantas Sale Act an airline cannot be safe. This is a most reckless and irresponsible suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition. Qantas is safe. I am proud of Qantas. I am proud of the workers. Virgin is safe. I am equally—

Mr Danby: What about China Southern?

The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will withdraw.

Mr Danby: Madam Speaker, my comments were about the safety record of China Southern compared to Qantas. I see no need to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: In that case, he can remove himself under 94(a).

The member for Melbourne Ports then left the chamber.

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on relevance: the question went to whether Qantas's safety record was related to its workforce—

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister finished his answer? We had the Leader of the Opposition attempting a point of relevance. We can only have a question.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

The SPEAKER: We do not have guidance under standing orders. It was a good intervention. It was a good try. The Prime Minister has indicated he wishes to continue his answer. He will direct his remarks to the question.

Mr ABBOTT: In this country we are blessed with two outstanding airlines: Qantas and Virgin. They both have outstanding safety records—and Rex, also a great airline with a great safety record. The point I wish to make is that Qantas's safety record does not depend upon the Qantas Sale Act, and it is reckless of the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that it does.
The Albo interjection is interesting.. I find it somewhat ironic that after nearly seven years of almost totally ignoring aviation issues, that finally Albo (and Labor) is fast developing a fixation on aviation matters. Not long after asking a couple more questions himself, Albo was ejected from the chamber...the Labor mob are a rabble..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2014, 00:44
  #1735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 954
Albo was ejected from the chamber...the Labor mob are a rabble.
Or being set upon by one of the most partisan speakers we have had in a long time. Having said that being ejected is just all part of the game in parliament.
mcgrath50 is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2014, 04:39
  #1736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Dear 'Bronny' is the most kicked out parliamentarian in history.


Payback is a bitch!
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 01:39
  #1737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Day 294 and counting…

It has been 1577 days since the ditching of VH-NGA; 546 days since Senator X first moved..

“…Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (11:55): I move:
That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012:
(a) the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island airport on 18 November 2009;
(b) the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an aviation accident investigation and the reporting process;
(c) the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in a timely manner; and
(d) any related matters.

Question agreed to….”
...and 294 days (& counting) that we have waited for two successive governments to respond to…“a damning, a damning report into the Aviation Transport Safety Bureau's investigation of Pel-Air flight VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009…”

Now finally, it would appear that, the tabling of the government response is imminent (within next fortnight), so in the last days of miniscule anxiety (or not) I thought some flashback moments may help to fill in the time…

The Senate Estimates on the 29 May ’13 (besides the battle of the two Big Macks) was a significant event. It began with the Heff setting the serious non-partisan concern of the RRAT committee…“Bugger it—the questions and the answers are the questions and the answers”:
Besides the numerous references (throughout the day) by the Senators for an urgent government response to the PelAir report; the start of the NX CAO 48.1 DM journey (post#548) and the battle of the two Big Macks, there was also some other (no less) significant moments that may have passed scrutiny from the IOS..

First there was Nick’s further inquisition on the now infamous Chambers Report:
In which Senator Xenophon’s QONs were answered like this:

Senator XENOPHON: I have got two more questions. What prompted you to focus on the Bankstown office?

Mr McCormick: I will take this on notice, but from memory there were over 77 certificates being managed from a very small office. In other words, an enormous amount of surveillance was being done at Bankstown.

Answer:
As advised during the hearing, the CASA Bankstown Office was managing a large number of certificates at the time and they were also the office responsible for the oversight of Pel-Air.

Senator XENOPHON: My understanding is that there was not a covering note or any associated note with the report, but I would like to know whether there was one.

Mr McCormick: To my knowledge there was not, but we will take it on notice.

Answer:
CASA provided a copy of a covering Minute to the Director of Aviation Safety (advising that the “Chambers Report” was attached) to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport during the Aviation Accident Investigations Inquiry, which is available on the Inquiry website. CASA was not able to find any other covering or associated notes to this report in its records.
Q/ Will the DAS (soon to be retired) ever escape the all pervading stench of “Wodger’s Weport”??

At the tailend of the FF inquisition there was a scene that encompassed Senators Heff & Edwards that we also may have missed in amongst all of the other shenanigans of the day…
Comment 1: Heff’s concerns, in regards to the RFS firebombing ops, is quite disturbing in light of the Dromader firebombing tragedy on the 24 October 2013. Wonder if there were any minutes taken of that meeting??

Comment 2: Senator ("Mea culpa after mea culpa) Edward’s question, on reflection, in regards to the Monarch ATSB investigation findings is interesting..
Perhaps a case of 21 years of FF/Dept/Govt obfuscation, procrastination and mea culpa after mea culpa?? . Wonder if it was wise for Kingcrat to draw attention to the fact that he has apparently been a silent witness, in the shadows, for that 21 years??

All in all it would seem that after the 29 May ’13 Estimates hearing there was a lot of behind closed doors meeting going on, oh to be a fly on the wall…

Dear miniscule…TICK..TOCK !
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2014, 01:05
  #1738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Devil Wodgers Weport we-visited!

Again to while away the time until the miniscule's response (and for IOS amusement {upon reflection}..), a golden moment and a significant turning point in the PelAir inquiry.....please enjoy..


Sarcs is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 09:30
  #1739 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3,408
I might have missed it but on the recommendation of the Senate Enqiry two simple questions.

Have the recorders been raised yet?? It is still possible they can provide some useful answers. Or is it in someone interests for this not to be so. I was, at around that time, in the throes of spending well over $600k to make an aircraft compliant. It did not make the aircraft any safer, just provided the obvious opportunity to learn if it did go upside down.
So why bother if you are not going to raise them.

And, shortly after the accident was there a vessel capable of doing so nearby and if so why was it not tasked to do so and who ordered it not to. I have seen the underwater video and from my limited knowledge of things underwater It seemed hardly challenging.
gaunty is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 09:41
  #1740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Gaunty,

I'm pretty sure it is still a no.

there were offers to help raise them I seem to recall


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...witcher=mobile


Sure the senators report covers this.

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 17th Mar 2014 at 09:45. Reason: Link
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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