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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 21st May 2014, 03:06
  #1881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Staggered and PO.

If, please the gods, we get past the WLR fluff-fest and if the Senate committee ever get another shot at sorting the mess out; the first item on the agenda must be this unbelievable email from CASA, which if you don't say NO, assumes that you are happy to have your personal contact email and telephone number released to a marketing company.

I though it was a wind-up when I heard about it – but No. it's absolutely fair dinkum. FWIW there is thread running – HERE.

BTW word on the street is the miniscule will get his WLR report next week, direct into his clammy paws; the ministry won't see it; Oh no: Oh Brother.
Kharon is offline  
Old 22nd May 2014, 03:08
  #1882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
BYO bucket 'weasel words' incoming!!

AQONs have finally been released, see here...

Sampling..

On CVD... QON No 197:
Senator FAWCETT: I can give you the letter afterwards. I have it sitting right here in front of me from your organisation dated 24 January doing exactly that. I will put it to you that with due respect this is not moving forward, despite the evidence that you gave here at estimates in November that CASA had no agenda or no plans to wind back the gains of the Denison case. This is, in fact, a very deliberate effort to adopt a standard which might medically ascertain that somebody does have a colour vision deficiency, but clearly as evidenced by multiple pilots that have flown for over two decades, it is not an accurate or effective measure of their ability to safely operate an aircraft. This is going backwards and not, in fact, forwards.
Mr McCormick: As I said, what has happened between November when I was here and that letter, this is the first that I know of it. We were, of course, expecting to be in the AAT to respond to a Mr O'Brien in February 2012, however, those proceedings are currently not listed for hearing as the previous hearing to commence on 31 March was vacated at the applicant's request. So we have not had the opportunity to test these things. As I said, that is news to me. I will take it on notice and find out what we have been doing.

Senator FAWCETT: If you want to come back to experts, your organisation's previous experts, Ladel, Brock, Wilkins and others, were very proactive in recognising that practical tests were a viable alternative and, in fact, that many people with a CVD were able to fly. Their judgment has proven correct by virtue of the incident-free 20 years of flying. Is it the case that a personality has changed, not the science and not the safety? A personality has changed and now CASA's approach to this issue is changing?
Mr McCormick: I am not aware of any changes around our approach to this. As I said, that letter is news to me. I am not across everything that leaves the building, particularly medical matters where I normally do not involve myself. We will take it on notice and I will get you an answer about what has transpired.
And AQON...

"...CASA is unaware of any specific instances where a pilot’s privileges have been removed by CASA following completion of a CAD test. Since the Senate Estimates hearings, a decision has been made in relation to one applicant who underwent and failed CAD testing, to impose modified conditions of operation on his licence. This included a restriction upon the pilot operating solo at night time. Otherwise the pilot remains able, as has been the position for approximately the past nine years, to operate under the privileges of his commercial pilot licence but not his air transport pilot licence (ATPL).

CASA obtained detailed specialist opinions from within Australia and internationally which supported the restriction upon ATPL operations. The applicant represents a person who has among the most severe form of colour deficiencies and has failed (to CASA’s knowledge) at least eight separate colour vision tests.


CASA also looked at the current aviation medical research across the world in relation to colour vision testing to ensure that a fair and appropriate test was undertaken and that medical certification requirements were properly undertaken. Accordingly CASA is satisfied that it has made a decision that balances the safety of aviation against the privileges of the pilot.


It is not the case that CASA is seeking to “wind back” the Dennison decision. CASA has endeavoured to ensure that the regulatory requirements were satisfied in the interests of aviation safety, this being a position consistently adopted by CASA over the last two decades. CASA remains of the opinion that to permit a pilot with a severe colour vision deficiency to exercise the privileges of an ATPL would be contrary to the interests of aviation safety.


The aviation medicine field has long recognised the deficiencies in the existing testing methods such as lantern and other colour vision tests, and has funded research to improve testing methods over the last decade. CASA considers the creation of new aviation-specific tests (such as the CAD test) are better suited than the previously used practical tests for detecting colour vision deficiency due to their direct relevance to aviation specific tasks and aviation safety concepts. In the case of the CAD test it has also been developed through industry consultation and by reference to medical research methodologies which allow it to be validated as an appropriate and more sophisticated method of testing, providing both vocationally relevant information and a colour vision diagnosis..."


Mrdak on TSBC review...QON No 194:
Senator XENOPHON: Further to Senator Fawcett's line of questioning, is the review by the Canadian TSB one on the documents or are they actually seeking to interview people involved in that incident and in the investigation?
Mr Mrdak: I do not know the full circumstances of what they are reviewing. I will take that on notice and come back to you.
And AQON...


"...The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has agreed to review the ATSB’s investigation methodologies and processes. Specifically, the review is examining the ATSB’s:

• Investigation methodology and its application
• Management and governance in relation to investigations
• Process for compiling an investigation report
• Approach to communicating with persons and organisations external to the ATSB in relation to an investigation.


As part of the review, the TSB has undertaken to examine the application of the ATSB methodologies to the Norfolk Island investigation and two others.


The review was instigated in response to Senate References Committee criticisms that the ATSB investigation of the Norfolk Island accident did not comply with the requirements of ICAO Annex 13 or the ATSB’s written standards. The review is also intended as part of the ATSB response to Inquiry recommendations concerning the adequacy of the ATSB’s investigation policies, procedures and training.


The exercise is not a reinvestigation of the occurrence, and hence the TSB has not sought to reinterview involved parties. However, as part of reviewing the ATSB’s investigations, the statements and other evidence of involved parties have been available to the review team..."


Clear as mud...read it and weep!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd May 2014, 09:19
  #1883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
The exercise is not a reinvestigation of the occurrence, and hence the TSB has not sought to reinterview involved parties. However, as part of reviewing the ATSB’s investigations, the statements and other evidence of involved parties have been available to the review team..."
This appears to be an important paragraph. Watch out for the press releases to see if this limit in scope is made clear or whether it is implied the TSB re investigated the work of the ATSB.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 22nd May 2014, 21:25
  #1884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Canadian integrity...

The review was instigated in response to Senate References Committee criticisms that the ATSB investigation of the Norfolk Island accident did not comply with the requirements of ICAO Annex 13 or the ATSB’s written standards. The review is also intended as part of the ATSB response to Inquiry recommendations concerning the adequacy of the ATSB’s investigation policies, procedures and training.
I find it hard to believe that the Canadian TSB would commence any form of analysis without an 'in depth' examination of the Australian registered difference to Annexe 13 and take note of how the spirit and intent of the ICAO tenet has been divorced and a new mistress, the MoU been installed. Of course the new regime has forced a difference to Annex 19 to be registered. It's all legal of course, tricky, but....legal.

A study of the TSB web site, their past investigations and their AIP (re Annexe 13) reveals an open, honest crew working well within a system which is not only ICAO compliant, but effective. Somehow the notion that they would be 'hood winked' or 'blinkered' by narrow terms of reference just doesn't seem to be on the square. They have both an international and domestic reputation to protect; are, by nature a proud, independent bunch who seem to take real 'safety' seriously. The language in "the report" may well be diplomatic, but the observations will be made. The real worry is that those words can be transmogrified into another 'soft white paper' response by those with less integrity and much to hide. On the plus side of the ledger, whatever is finally produced still has to pass through the doughty defence of Fawcett, Xenophon and the rest; who will not (IMO) be taking too many prisoners.

If Truss is fair dinkum, he will publish the entire report for the people who paid for it to read and draw their own conclusions. Expect the worst, hope for the best and believe the Canadian TSB will never cross to the dark side.

May the force be with you.
Kharon is offline  
Old 23rd May 2014, 04:12
  #1885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
A ‘New Hope’ or ‘The Phantom Menace’??

I’m confused?? Like Dr Pape initially I thought we were watching a rerun of the ‘Empire Strikes Back’. Then (much like the Star Wars series) with the introduction of the WLR I thought we had fast forwarded (or was it back??) to a ‘New Hope’. However now I think we may be watching a rerun of the ‘Phantom Menace’?? Hmm…still confused…maybe we are all under some sort of Hoodoo Voodoo??
Kharon:
I find it hard to believe that the Canadian TSB would commence any form of analysis without an 'in depth' examination of the Australian registered difference to Annexe 13 and take note of how the spirit and intent of the ICAO tenet has been divorced and a new mistress, the MoU been installed. Of course the new regime has forced a difference to Annex 19 to be registered. It's all legal of course, tricky, but....legal.
A New Hope: In 2010 Senator X introduced a proposed amendment to the TSI Act:

TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION AMENDMENT (INCIDENT REPORTS) BILL 2010
“…On 21 July 2007, a Jetstar Airbus A320 was being flown from Christchurch to Melbourne.

However, upon its approach into a foggy Melbourne, the pilot in command did not perform the go-around procedure correctly and, in the process, the crew were unaware that the aircraft was continuing to descend. The aircraft came within 38 feet of the ground before anyone realised.
After re-climbing, the pilot then attempted to land a second time but this had to be diverted again due to the fog. The plane eventually landed safely at Avalon airport.

Upon their return to New Zealand, the crew reported the incident to the airline operator, who took five days before reporting the incident to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

It was later revealed, however, that the internal report given to the ATSB by the operator excluded key information which led to the authority determining that a formal investigation was not required.

It was only after media reports some months later that the ATSB made further inquiries into the incident and determined that an investigation was required. Its report was highly critical.

Jetstar subsequently adopted Airbus’s standard procedures for go-arounds, and instigated a review of its third party training procedures.

Indeed, the 21st July incident may not have seen the light of day, had it not been for third parties coming forward with information.

Under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, 'responsible persons' (such as pilots and airline operators) are required to report all reportable matters to a 'nominated official' (such as the Australian Transport Safety Board) as soon as is reasonably practicable.

It provides that if a person improperly influences a 'responsible person' making a report, or penalises them for their report, that they face a penalty of 24 months imprisonment.

This Bill aims to ensure that all incidents are accurately reported and properly investigated so that safety measures can be reviewed, training processes addressed, protocols reviewed both for that airline in particular but also across the industry.

Indeed, without incidents being accurately reported, passenger safety has the potential to be compromised. This Bill is about maintaining the highest standards of aviation safety in Australia…”

History will show that Senator X’s proposed amendment and the subsequent Senate inquiry report was eventually white-washed by the Govt GWEP and this undertaking…

From Govt response to PT Senate Inquiry report:



Parallel Universe: Meanwhile in a galaxy..far..far..away…

On the 18 Nov 2010 ICAO, in the course of aligning the various Annexes with the principles (‘spirit and intent’) of their DRAFT version of Annex 19, amended the Annex 13 CH8 para 8.2 from a recommendation to a standard (from 2010 version of Annex 13)…

“…8.2 A State shall establish a voluntary incident reporting system to facilitate collection of information on actual or potential safety deficiencies that may not be captured by the mandatory incident reporting system.
Note.— States are encouraged to establish other safety data collection and processing systems to collect safety information that may not be captured by the incident reporting systems mentioned in 8.1 and 8.2 above…”

The Empire strikes back: Inevitably the hub bub of bigger domestic political issues, bureaucratic obfuscation, a listless MSM competing in a 24/7 news cycle and further political spin led to the Senator X intiative being all but forgotten.

Meanwhile in the halls and offices of the Dept (& its minion aviation safety agencies) it would appear the ‘powers to be’ were hatching a plan to (hopefully) avoid future public scrutiny & embarrassment from Senator X and his IOS cronies. Statement from the ATsB 2011-12 Annual report:

Response to Senate Inquiry
On 23 June 2011, the Senate Rural and Transport References Committee handed down its report from its inquiry into ‘Pilot training and airline safety; and consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010’.

On 22 November 2011 the Government tabled its response in the Senate.
Copies of the Inquiry’s report and the Government’s response are available at: www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rat_ctte/pilots_2010/index.htm

The nongovernment Bill, the ‘Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010’, was directed at making amendments to the ATSB’s accident and incident notifications scheme. The Bill was not supported by the Inquiry or the Government.

The ATSB has been consulting separately on reforms to its notifications scheme. A draft set of regulations was released in July 2012.”

Under the smokescreen of the PelAir inquiry these regulations were introduced to the Parliament (22 Nov 2012) with the title of Transport Safety Investigation (Voluntary and Confidential Reporting Scheme) Regulation 2012 and replaced the Air Navigation (Confidential Reporting) Regulations 2006.

This initiative, in principle, was supposed to protect the principles/concept of REPCON incident reports and reinforce the importance that ICAO now places on protecting both the source and the safety information derived from such reports (i.e. as outlined in Annex 13 CH8 ACCIDENT PREVENTION MEASURES paragraph 8.2).

The significance that ICAO holds on the ‘spirit & intent’ of para 8.2 was further highlighted in a first meeting of the ICAO APRAST (Investigation Ad hoc Working Group), held in Bangkok 6-8 June 2012. Somewhat ironically, agenda Item 7: Voluntary and Non-Punitive Incident Reporting discussed the ATSB REPCON programme, see HERE.

The Phantom menace: IMO replacing the Air Navigation (Confidential Reporting) Regulations 2006 with Transport Safety Investigation (Voluntary and Confidential Reporting Scheme) Regulation 2012 represents an extreme low point in the life & times of the ATsB & TSI Act 2003.Reading the reg, between the weasel words, you will see that all references to the ANA 1920 (the head of power for the 2006 regs), ICAO annex 13 (spirit & intent) have been omitted and it is dubious whether the assumed protections, meant to be provided, cannot be circumvented.

Finally (& to put the above Kharon quote in context) if we fast forward to the H18/14, released 3 April 2014. And then refer to the weasel worded difference to Annex 13 para 8.2 (pg 76); and the differences listed for the newly (November ’13) promulgated ICAO Annex 19 (pg 96-97), you begin to get a picture of the level of deceit our esteemed aviation safety authorities are prepared to go to in order to cover up our deficiencies as a signatory state to ICAO & Annex 19.

Dear miniscule,
ICAO Annex 19 Attachment A-2 sub para 1.3 states (my bold)…

“…1.3 Accident and incident investigation
The State has established an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability. Such investigations are in support of the management of safety in the State. In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations…”

TICK TOCK miniscule…
Sarcs is offline  
Old 23rd May 2014, 12:19
  #1886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
The CAsA empire will strike back

The Fort Fumble dark side has some strong opponents to the IOS Jedi council;

Darth Vader - Herr Skull
Darth Sidious - Kingcrat
Darth Maul - Terry from the West
Darth Plagueis - Dr Hoodoo
Darth Tyranus - The Archerfield manager

Once the bloodletting has ended there will be a number of these Darths who will remain, and rest assured they will regroup and once again take revenge upon the IOS Jedi council.

Tick tock
004wercras is offline  
Old 23rd May 2014, 12:26
  #1887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
and rest assured they will regroup and once again take revenge upon the IOS Jedi council.
that comment assumes an unrestricted power.

the reality is that they can be sued for abuse of power. ....and probably will be if the activities are revenge based.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 23rd May 2014, 19:56
  #1888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Australian integrity.

004# 1943 –"Once the bloodletting has ended there will be a number of these Darths who will remain, and rest assured they will regroup and once again take revenge upon the IOS Jedi council."
Dunno mate – W8 may have the right of it. Think on – 270 (plus supplementary) submissions is powerful medicine. That's a lot of research and even more information gathered, distilled into palatable phases; the ugly parts written around lest the daemon libel be conjured and used to scare small children. The problem, for those wishing to extract vengeance, is two fold.

In primus; the 'bank' of information related to those who would wish to extract revenge is considerable and not restricted to minor operational or clerical misdemeanours. There are some truly 'interesting' case studies of matters which could, at worst, result with goal or heavy fines; at best, are career enders with the associated social disgrace and ostracism. A tit for tat battle of attrition would simply be an unviable, mathematically unattractive nonsense.

Secundus, should the miniscule be fortunate (or smart) enough to avoid the pratfall of appointing an incompetent, embarrassing, unpopular DAS and manage to persuade the 'right-person' to accept the job; then the new DAS may well be quite fully aware of exactly what has previously passed as 'acceptable' behaviour and quietly, but ruthlessly, weed out the more "embarrassing" elements. Knowing full well - the world and it's wife will be watching: closely.

No, the old crowd have had their fun for now, they are teetering on the brink of very public disclosure and associated humiliation: the difference this time being a small group of Senators who not only believe the evil empire exists, but intend to eradicate it.

Anyway; if the remnants of the 'old guard' want a piece of me; they'll need to be bloody hungry. We see a lot of bullies, cowards and liars on the ferry; pitiful lot. I usually leave the care and feeding of 'em to the Gobbledock, being as how I like to watch him work. He does the "abandon all hope" pre departure safety spiel so very, very well.
Frequently mistranslated as "Abandon hope all ye who enter here". The word "all" modifies hope, not those who enter: "ogni speranza" means "all hope". – Wiki.
O, vengeance!
Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,
That I, the son of a dear father murder'd,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words,
And fall a-cursing.

Selah.

Last edited by Kharon; 23rd May 2014 at 20:04. Reason: The fare is unchanged - two coins is all it ever was.
Kharon is offline  
Old 23rd May 2014, 21:16
  #1889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Some may recall the senators having concerns over retribution for submittal to the Truss review not being given the same protections of previous Senate Inquiries.

If anybody does feel they are suffering adverse affects I'd suggest looking at bullying and harassment as that legislation seems to be getting stronger.

Bruce Byron don't look too bad now.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 23rd May 2014, 23:37
  #1890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Senator George Brandis has an enquiry shortly.

There is ample grist for investigation into discrimination and inclusion in The Attorney General's upcoming inquisition into the legal fraternity. The pre cursor would need to be a desk full of complaints along similar lines involving the CAsA that would trigger a report to go via the enquiry to Parliament with some Independents copied in.


This costs nothing, although the conciliation phase could be open to "trickery" by CAsA. One would need to stand their ground here.


Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986
Grounds of discrimination

Breaches of human rights by any Commonwealth body or agency and discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin, age, medical record, criminal record, marital status, impairment, disability, nationality, sexual preference, trade union activity.
Areas covered

Commonwealth body or agency; employment and occupation.
Process for decision making

Complaint must be in writing. It is then assessed and if within jurisdiction is investigated. If complaint is not declined, conciliation is attempted. If it cannot be conciliated, the Commission prepares a report to the federal Attorney-General who then tables the report in Parliament.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 23rd May 2014 at 23:39. Reason: May the farce be with you.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 02:11
  #1891 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I'm disappointed that nobody has yet added to this post except for one telephone call to advise that CAsA are immune from discrimination complaints because it is written in their charter. I had a feeling this was the case and hoped someone may highlight the relevant rule that makes them immune from transparency in matters of discriminatory treatment such as bastardisation, marginalization, incorrect interpretations, failure to define, selective opinions, personal vendettas, waste of taxpayer resources to prosecute until the defendant is bankrupt, compromising of personal evidence to prevent scrutiny or legal examination, extending proceedings to damage financially and generally misusing their authority for vexatious and petty vindictive pursuits.


If somebody can point to the relevant rule that makes them immune, please advise us all so we can contribute to the Brandis enquiry. Somebody then can start a new thread to concentrate on this upcoming event which may have more sway than the Truss WOFTAM which I'm guessing only served to gazump the Senate enquiry.


It's one thing having laws, but exemptions from the law don't sit well without strident examination and review.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 25th May 2014 at 02:12. Reason: May the farce be 'with you' as opposed to against.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 02:18
  #1892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Let the Mayday games begin!

Busy week for the miniscule, headcrat MM & his minions and the Senators...

News Bulletin for Day One: The Mayday Aviation Carnival week (A 'New Hope' or 'Extinction') festivities kick off with an evening Q&A session hosted by the Senate ri..ri..RRAT committee.

Guest speakers include mi..mi..mi..Beaker fresh from serious international discussions in Cantberra in regard to MH370 and feeling especially rejuvenated after receiving a $60 million dollar bucket to help keep up appearances that the ATsB is a world leader in AAI.

Other guests also include Mr McComic (STBR FF DAS), who we've been told will be giving us an update on the latest advances in Aviation Medicine while also highlighting CAsA's excellent progress in keeping to the projected 40 year+ timetable expected rollout of the complete suite of the CASR regs.

So grab your partner (or if you prefer your pineapple) and hop'a'long to the fun & festivities at Senate Committee Room 2R1 from 16:30 EST (06:30 UTC) (Note: BYO jar of vas).

Oh an here's a link for the evening's program... Day One MAC Week
Sarcs is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 04:18
  #1893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
The miracle of the PM. Thanks Stan.

They do but they don't. Clear as mud.


Civil Aviation Act 1988
- C2014C00167
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00167
30EF CASA may reinstate if satisfied that holder’s livelihood depends on authorisation
(1) A holder of a civil aviation authorisation who has been given a demerit suspension notice or demerit cancellation notice may apply to CASA to have the authorisation reinstated.
(2) Subsection (1) applies despite paragraphs 30DY(2)(b), 30DZ(2)(b) and 30EC(2)(b).
(3) If, and only if, CASA is satisfied that the suspension or cancellation would cause the holder severe financial hardship because, without the authorisation, the holder would not be able to earn the holder’s principal or only income, CASA may:
(a) reinstate the authorisation; and
(b) impose on the authorisation such conditions as CASA considers appropriate in the circumstances.
98 Regulations etc. (6C) CASA must consult the Australian Human Rights Commission about any proposal that regulations be made containing provisions that are inconsistent as mentioned in subsection (6A) or (6B). However, a failure to consult the Commission does not affect the validity of any regulations so made.
FIRST MENTION OF THE ABOVE IN JULY 2005
This compilation was prepared on 8 July 2005
taking into account amendments up to Act No. 86 of 2005


(6A) The regulations may contain provisions relating to medical standards that are inconsistent with theSex Discrimination Act 1984 if the inconsistency is necessary for the safety of air navigation.
Note: See also Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2005.
(6B) The regulations may contain provisions that are inconsistent with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 if the inconsistency is necessary for the safety of air navigation.
Note: See also Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2005.
(6C) CASA must consult the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission about any proposal that regulations be made containing provisions that are inconsistent as mentioned in subsection (6A) or (6B). However, a failure to consult the Commission does not affect the validity of any regulations so made. (6B) The regulations may contain provisions that are inconsistent with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 if the inconsistency is necessary for the safety of air navigation.
Note: See also Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2005.
 

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 25th May 2014 at 04:23. Reason: Add comment.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 22:09
  #1894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,402
You are wasting your time. The Senate is a bad joke. Nothing will be done to curb CASA's power, in fact it will actually be increased as a result of the review.

This will occur because the Senate and the Minister will accept CASA's submission that the current unhappiness with it is due to its lack of resources, lack of regulatory powers and most importantly, the number of regulatory constraints imposed by Government on its functions - for example the requirement to be a model litigant and also its subservience to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

"If you will just unchain us and free us from these fetters, Minister, we can do a much better job!" - along with the not so subtle message that if there is a major accident CASA will point to its lack of powers, as evidenced by its submissions, and blame the Minister for the accident.


...and then the bastardry and embuggerance will continue to new heights. So my message is: BOHICA!
Sunfish is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 23:04
  #1895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
BOHICA.

Sunny eloquently iterates the battle cry of the IOS. From the - Urban Dictionary – which is always a handy reference source.

acronym, although pronounced as if it is a single word, for "Bend over! Here it comes again."

Commonly used around the workplace when getting repeatedly ****** by the work center supervisor. Very commonly used within the military, specifically the navy and FFG-22.
Big grin icon -
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 00:31
  #1896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Oz embuggerance of ICAO SARPs

Note: Couple of PMs have expressed their opinions that my post #789 from Truss thread would be better represented on this thread...so here it is..

Mayday..mayday..mayday!

Top catch SIUYA at post #782 & #785….
“..SUMMARIES OF DISCUSSIONS

Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process

44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes..”


Meanwhile, in Fort Fumble’s parallel universe, the middle management minions were busy enacting their MAP to roger DJ and the ATsB, while attempting to cover up their obvious shortcomings to properly oversight the PelAir operation.

Anyone else see the irony in the two universes?

List of Participants

AUSTRALIA

MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D


Looking at all the participants from Oz, I also find it more than ‘passing strange’ that Beaker’s crew did not get a look in?? After all the principle body that is fundamental to a successful State SSP is it’s fully independent AAI.


Oh well perhaps bean counter Beaker’s budgetary constraints couldn’t stretch to paying a couple of economy class airfares to Montreal…

In regards to Annex 19 & in the context of the WLR panel report, unlike CAsA, hopefully the panel will have not missed the significance and importance that ICAO place on Annex 19 as the lynch pin that ties all the other ICAO SARPs together. This significance was certainly not missed by several of the submitters to the WLR, who have asked for the Govt to seriously consider reviewing/updating our version of the SSP (State Safety Program i.e. Annex 19).


Examples…

Sports Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) submission:

2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)

a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.


Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) submission:


5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.

It is worth reflecting on the ALA submission because the main author of their submission was Joseph Wheeler from Shine Lawyers. This bloke has a real handle on our obligations, as a signatory state, to the ICAO SARPs and in particular Annex 19. Couple of quotes from the ALA submission…

“…Despite Australia’s admirable domestic and international air safety record, and its respected place among International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) States, Australia does not occupy as high a place as it should in terms of international adherence to ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) – the principal measure of a nation’s air safety oversight obligations…”

And from Part ‘5. Systemic oversight issues following Lockhart River crash in 2005’…

“…In the aftermath of the Lockhart River crash it is recognised that the broader trend worldwide towards risk assessment and management led to the development and approaches being implemented at the operational level by CASA. See for example, the publication “SMS for Aviation – A practical guide: Safety Management System Basics”.51

The ALA’s submission is that while there is now a proactive aviation atmosphere with respect to safety risk management for aviation service providers, as evidenced by CASA’s reliance on such principles in preparing its own responses to SARPs on fatigue risk management and drug and alcohol risk management in aviation, these principles should also not be forgotten in the broader context of the results which can eventuate in the absence of such principles in guiding surveillance or oversight of AOC holders (such as the crash at Lockhart River).

Thus, the ALA recommends and endorses updating of the Australian State Safety Program, as published on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, as this was last considered in April 2012, well before the commencement of Annex 19.52 The benefit of this would be to demonstrate to the public the Government’s continuing adherence to regulatory oversight and surveillance at a national level and inspire confidence in smaller air operators to embrace safety risk management principles in the management of their aviation businesses…”

Joseph Wheeler has also produced some excellent articles, published on the Shine Lawyers blog site, on the MH370 search and accident investigation:
MH370 investigation: roles, responsibilities and rule changes
MH370 Preliminary Report released

But his latest article perhaps best highlights the essential role that ICAO play in governing how a signatory state must predictively act after a tragic air disaster has occurred.
MH370 search for answers and ICAO work to track airliners

One rule in Annex 13 is that countries which have a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens are entitled to “have access to relevant factual information which [are] approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation”: Ch 5.27 at 5-8 – 5-9. While it has been argued that no-one knows better than accident investigators the importance of their role (to make aviation safer) we maintained (less than 2 weeks after the aircraft’s disappearance) that:

passengers’ families need to be represented within investigations, both during the search phase and during the investigation phase. … It is only these people, with their human feelings and passionate concerns for answers (owing to their unique losses and experience), which can serve to remind investigators of the reason they are doing what they are doing – to prevent the suffering which has been caused to family members – not the lofty ambition of “making aviation safer” (a trite comment in the context of the shared global pain of those hoping with the families of MH370 passengers to get answers).

We do not depart from those views.

In this case the ICAO SARPs, along with international community, has helped remind the Malaysians of their obligations to the victims and their families of flight MH370.

Joseph Wheeler’s article also displays how all the ICAO SARPs are intrinsically linked. If you follow the JW Annex 13 reference (i.e. Ch 5.27):

5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall be entitled to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information which is approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation; and
c) receive a copy of the Final Report.


This will not preclude the State from also assisting in the identification of victims and in meetings with survivors from that State.


Note.— Guidance related to assistance to aircraft accident victims and their families is provided in the Guidance on Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and their Families (Circ 285).

Link for Circ 285 HERE & ICAO Annex 9, Chapter 8, Section (I) can be viewed HERE

yr right’s comments…

“…SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps…”

“…At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good…”

yr right is right that SMS & Annex 19 is yet another impost to industry stakeholders and is largely based on ‘common sense’. yr right is not right when it comes to ICAO and their SARPs.

Since the Chicago Convention 1944, the ICAO SARPs have been evolving and are produced from over a 110 years of collective (some tragically) international air safety lessons learnt. Those bothersome Human Factors experts may have had a large part in the writing and design of Annex 19, however their combined efforts are not just based on a whim. HF experts in aviation basically study why it is we humans continue to make fundamental errors while committing aviation. They also look at ways to lessen the occurrence & severity of these errors. Annex 19 is a reflection of HF expert research over a good 50 or so years.

That is why it is a total abomination that our numb nuts in CAsA and the Dept (there are Dept names in that list) have the audacity to spend untold millions of taxpayer monies going on junkets to Montreal to show, on paper at least, that we are an ICAO compliant State. But in reality we are merely paying lip service to the ‘Spirit & Intent’ of over 70 years of collective ICAO wisdom…

One can only hope that the ALA recommendation 5 features somewhere near the top of the list of WLR recommendations and the miniscule takes heed, hopefully sometime before Mr ICAO eventually comes knocking…

TICK bloody TOCK!

Comment: Have also been doing some research on the history of CAIR/REPCON because it disturbs me how this, ICAO endorsed, essential safety information source, has evolved and been diluted to the current WOFTAM system we have today. Effectively submitting a REPCON is nothing more than a signed, sealed confession open to future exploitation (rogering) by Fort Fumble.

In the course of my research I came across a paper from the then ATSB CAIR manager (2001), the paper was titled "Who Cares About CAIR?" Here is a part of that paper reproduced:
Successes, failures and challenges

How do you measure success? How do you ever know if a report of a
notification of a system deficiency subsequently prevents an accident? An
identified system weakness, knowledge of a violation, limitations in training are all factors - known as .holes in the cheese. - and defences are then developed and put in place to limit the risk and improve safety.

Several outcomes can be identified from CAIR reports where action has been taken to make the system safer, such as CASA.s withdrawal of the AOC of shonky operators, changes to inadequate or inaccurate documentation, navigation aids or procedures. But how many accidents has the CAIR system prevented? No one knows. The CAIR office received numerous reports of alleged maintenance deficiencies with a major airline last year. Was it a coincidence that the regulator CASA grounded a number of an operator's aircraft earlier this year? It would be drawing a long bow to say that an aircraft did not crash or have an accident because the early warning system had raised an awareness of deficiencies and action was taken to prevent such an outcome.

What about the recent accident in Bangkok? Were flight crews concerned about deficiencies with training or procedures? Were flight crews aware of the potentially increased risk with the flaps 25 approach, in particular, a high and fast approach to a wet runway - at night. If they were concerned about any of these matters - why was no report submitted to the CAIR system? Are the flight crews of airlines persuaded to not submit reports to the CAIR system because of a negative event that had occurred to one their members in the past?

The greatest concern, and what is considered to be a failure of the safety system, are those occasions when an operator or an organisation seeks to find out who submitted a CAIR report.

If you were the head of an airline, of course you would want your own systems in place to capture any information that identified deficiencies in your defences. For public relations reasons, you would not want these deficiencies known by the public - its bad for business. But it is not as bad as having an aircraft slide off the end of the runway or having large cracks found in the wings or engine pylons, or having a large portion of your fleet grounded.

If you were the head of an airline and one of your employees was aware of a safety hazard but was uncomfortable with the internal reporting system, you would want that person to tell someone, especially someone that had a system in place that would alert you to the hazard. Any attempt to identify the reporter of a CAIR report does make the CAIR manager’s job harder and has the potential to weaken the whole system. A system that was solely developed to protect our industry by improving flight safety.

The history of flight was in its infancy at the beginning of the last century. Thus, the contemporary air safety investigation practices of the 21st century are, by definition, in their infancy. So what are the challenges for confidential incident reporting. First and foremost is the maintenance of the viability and integrity of the confidential program. The demise of the various confidential programs of other countries has resulted from a lack of commitment, funding and the rigid application of robust procedures.

In Australia, the three pillars of CAIR are:

• The maintenance of the confidentiality of the reporter

• The willingness of industry to use the system, and

• The provision of feedback to the reporter and industry.

While the program manager has a degree of control over the first and last of the three pillars, the willingness of industry to use the program can be destroyed in a moment. The CAIR program needs the support of all facets of industry: flight crew, operators, engineers, regulators and managers.

Everyone committed to safety should promote and support the reporting of
incidents through both the open and confidential incident reporting systems...
So who..Cares about CAIR (REPCON)? Well quite obviously, through the abrogation of our obligations to ICAO Annex 19, our executive management of the Dept, FF & the bureau don't CAIR..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 11:45
  #1897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
I'm amazed that no one is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the creation of the incredible pox of aviation paperwork.
I'm pretty sure it was about 1914 that the pommy military, on the premise that someone had sabotaged a spar glue joint, created the elaborate system of signing for work and maintaining inordinately never ending paper trails.

but then people don't celebrate the coming of the black plague either, maybe for the same reasons
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 12:27
  #1898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
D8, I believe CAsA have opted out of celebrating the 100 year anniversary so they can celebrate the 1 year operation of Sky Sentinel instead!! I believe a birthday cake that was created in the shape of Terry's Zimmer frame and it was consumed while all and sundry smoked Cuban cigars with the Skull, Hockey and Corman!

Celebratory skies for all
004wercras is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 00:02
  #1899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 108
Other guests also include Mr McComic (STBR FF DAS), who we've been told will be giving us an update on the latest advances in Aviation Medicine
It was good to see even the PMO himself getting grilled last night for a change. Top marks to Senator Fawcett


Last edited by brissypilot; 27th May 2014 at 01:15.
brissypilot is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 03:00
  #1900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Senate Estimates - 26/05/14

Well done brissypilot...

So the DAS (STBR) can't see his way to funding a safety case study into the CVD matter but yet he can justify spending over a 100k in the AAT fighting against the issue...yep makes sense to me....NOT!

On the ATsBeaker grilling by Fawcett, here is some vid coverage of the TSBC review questioning...

Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - ATSB TSBC review Part 1 - YouTube


Interesting that the WLR panel met with the TSBC in Ottawa to compare notes (Part two above)...

MTF...


Addendum

PT Article -
ATSB puts itself on the MH370 search stage


Why is the ATSB claiming a place in the MH370 spotlight when it hasn’t the decency and commitment to properly investigate the lesser mystery of the crash of an Australian jet into a different ocean more than four years ago?


The Australian Transport Safety Bureau putting up its shingle as a an investigative authority in the disappearance and search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is ironic for an organisation that botched its inquiry into the crash of a small corporate jet, a Westwind operated by Pel-Air, into the sea near Norfolk Island in 2009.


Unlike MH370, the precise location of the crashed Pel-Air jet is known, and all six people on board the medevac flight from Apia to Melbourne survived, although one remains seriously injured and uncompensated five years after the accident.


Despite this the flight data recorder on the downed jet, and its potentially embarrassing insights into the weather advice given its pilots, has not been recovered. The ATSB produced a much criticised and ridiculed report into the crash, which did not even discuss the safety lessons learned from the crash, during which the safety equipment on board the jet failed to work as intended.


The chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, was severely criticised by a Senate committee for the testimony he gave to it during its inquiry into the processes that led to its accident report, and John McCormick, the director of aviation safety at CASA, apologised to the hearings for withholding from the ATSB an internal document that found that CASA could have prevented the crash in the first place had it carried out of duties of oversight over Pel-Air.


The leading voices in that damning inquiry were coalition Senator David Fawcett and independent Senator Nick Xenophon, and the public shame and anger associated in aviation circles with the Pel-Air crash report remains unresolved.


The ATSB’s ‘MH370 investigation’ page currently features three background papers that are factually correct, but repeat word for word information that has already been set out with clarity by the Joint Agency Coordination Centre, led by Air Chief Marshal Houston (ret’d).


The JACC site is more useful than the ATSB site in that it also carries transcripts of media briefings in which many of the questions or issues not addressed by the ATSB pages are explored in detail.


The ATSB’s positioning of itself in the MH370 investigation would be far more convincing if it were to withdraw and redo its disgracefully incomplete and inadequate final report into the Pel-Air crash of 2009, starting with the retrieval and reading of the flight data recorder from its know location.


A collection of stories relevant to the Pel-Air crash can be found here. The report of a Senate committee into the ATSB’s handling of the Pel-Air crash investigation and the current government’s response can be found at this link. (It is important to read both.)


Senator Fawcett’s parliamentary speech concerning the integrity of CASA and the ATSB in relation to Pel-Air can be found here, with a full copy from Hansard.


The question remains. Why is the ATSB claiming a place in the MH370 spotlight when it hasn’t the decency and commitment to properly investigate the lesser mystery of the crash of an Australian jet into a different ocean more than four years ago?
My sentiments exactly Ben..

Last edited by Sarcs; 27th May 2014 at 06:12.
Sarcs 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.