Merged: Senate Inquiry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will always have accidents. We need to try and limit that to the lowest point we can.
I won't release an aircraft I won't fly in. It's that simple. But when you get awi that pings you for not having a torque wrench for a tyre valve cap you then relize how f up we are now in. And yes that's happened not to me but a mate.
I won't release an aircraft I won't fly in. It's that simple. But when you get awi that pings you for not having a torque wrench for a tyre valve cap you then relize how f up we are now in. And yes that's happened not to me but a mate.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good work Sarcs. Nicely done. The Framer post is solid gold;
The quote above always concerns me; I wonder, is a one hour prior notification adequate?; three hours into a four hour flight your options may be limited; one hour into a four hour flight and the odds improve. I've often wondered if a HA should be 'officially' issued to all aircraft en-route to the affected aerodrome, the moment it becomes 'live'. Can't see how that would cost a lot to do, perhaps some of the ATC could advise on the nuts and bolts.
Re the Met services wrangle, haven't read it yet, but aren't the NTSB putting their foot down about meteorological services to aviation ?.
With specific reference to AIP GEN 3.3 section 2.1.1, aircraft within one hour flight time of the condition are required to be notified by air traffic control (ATC) of the existence of new operational information. Based on the information provided in the report, the aircraft should have been provided with the relevant information. If the information was not already described in a current meteorological (MET) product or Notice to Airmen (NOT AM) then ATC is required to communicate the information using the prefixed "HAZARD ALERT".
Re the Met services wrangle, haven't read it yet, but aren't the NTSB putting their foot down about meteorological services to aviation ?.
NTSB initiative on pilot SIG WX dissemination.
Kharon:
Yes indeed the NTSB have issued a series of SRs on the same topic (SSI). Why?? Well because wx related incidents/accidents continue to rise and it is their solemn duty, in compliance with Annex 13 Ch 8, to mitigate SSI & ultimately (hopefully) prevent future accidents..
:
Maybe this is contributory to the FAA, a couple of days before the NTSB issued the SRs, putting out this: Got Weather?
Gotta love the Yanks...
Re the Met services wrangle, haven't read it yet, but aren't the NTSB putting their foot down about meteorological services to aviation ?.
:
NTSB Recommends Weather Forecast Improvements AINsafety » May 12, 2014
by Robert P. Mark
May 12, 2014, 11:10 AM
The National Transportation Safety Board last week published nine specific recommendations to the FAA and the National Weather Service (NWS) that are intended to deliver more comprehensive pre-flight weather information to pilots. The recommendations—A-14-13 to -16 and A-14-17 to -21—are based on the findings of NTSB accident investigations involving aircraft encountering adverse surface wind, dense fog, icing, turbulence, and low-level wind shear. While this information currently exists, it is not always provided directly to pilots by NWS preflight weather forecasts.
“What’s difficult to understand is why weather advisories from the National Weather Service to the general public, at times, provide more comprehensive information about weather conditions than the advisories they provide to pilots experiencing the same conditions,” said NTSB member Earl Weener. “Why pilots would receive less information makes no sense, and increases the risk of flying in severe weather conditions.”
While the NWS also routinely advises pilots of turbulence and mountain wave activity, there are also no specific requirements to brief pilots about these items.
Tags: National Weather ServiceWeather forecastingNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationWeather warningDisasterWeather
FILED UNDER: Accidents, Safety, Security and Training
by Robert P. Mark
May 12, 2014, 11:10 AM
The National Transportation Safety Board last week published nine specific recommendations to the FAA and the National Weather Service (NWS) that are intended to deliver more comprehensive pre-flight weather information to pilots. The recommendations—A-14-13 to -16 and A-14-17 to -21—are based on the findings of NTSB accident investigations involving aircraft encountering adverse surface wind, dense fog, icing, turbulence, and low-level wind shear. While this information currently exists, it is not always provided directly to pilots by NWS preflight weather forecasts.
“What’s difficult to understand is why weather advisories from the National Weather Service to the general public, at times, provide more comprehensive information about weather conditions than the advisories they provide to pilots experiencing the same conditions,” said NTSB member Earl Weener. “Why pilots would receive less information makes no sense, and increases the risk of flying in severe weather conditions.”
While the NWS also routinely advises pilots of turbulence and mountain wave activity, there are also no specific requirements to brief pilots about these items.
Tags: National Weather ServiceWeather forecastingNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationWeather warningDisasterWeather
FILED UNDER: Accidents, Safety, Security and Training
Knowledge is power. Before you fly consider your abilities and those of your aircraft. Weather briefings, forecasts, and alert apps can provide insight into how likely you are to encounter turbulence on your next flight.
Chapter 7.?Safety of Flight
- FAAsafety – Aviation Weather Data: A Targeted Approach
- General Aviation Pilot's Guide to Preflight Weather Planning, Weather Self-Briefings, and Weather Decision Making (PDF)
- AIM: Other Sources of Weather Information
Chapter 7.?Safety of Flight
Last edited by Sarcs; 16th May 2014 at 07:15.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the NSB and the FAA have pretty much nailed the process for safety oversight and safety investigations is in part due to the fact that most Americans won't bend over and grab their ankles like us Australians do!!! Our bureaucrats speak **** and we accept it, cop it on the chin, take another hit in the ass. We need to stand up en mass and fight back.
Long live the IOS!
Long live the IOS!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marquess of Queensberry – never heard of him.
004 - Don't think there's much doubt on 'fight back'; 260 or is it 270 submissions is an avalanche. Word on the street is that if the WLR gets the same treatment as the Pel Air inquiry there will be three revolutions for the miniscule to deal with; one from industry, the second from within the National party, Barnaby and Co. leading the charge over thin ice; and, probably the Senate committee. (IMO they have too much information to ignore, with any sort of clear conscience, that is).
Sarcs has a clever little aside at the tail end of this – POST 770 – (Truss) relating to the Part 61 fiasco; the answer to the question is disingenuous; if it's anything other than NZ /FAA 61. Clever question, dangerous ground. You'd have to wonder why this bloke hasn't sat down with Fawcett and/or Xenophon to get a true picture instead of meekly accepting flawed advice from the creatures who allowed the mess to continue from his last tenure in 2008. The Rev. Forsyth may deliver the sermon but what will happen once the church doors close and the pub doors open is anyone's guess. We shall see, can't be many more sleeps till the WLR is released.
Toot toot.
Sarcs has a clever little aside at the tail end of this – POST 770 – (Truss) relating to the Part 61 fiasco; the answer to the question is disingenuous; if it's anything other than NZ /FAA 61. Clever question, dangerous ground. You'd have to wonder why this bloke hasn't sat down with Fawcett and/or Xenophon to get a true picture instead of meekly accepting flawed advice from the creatures who allowed the mess to continue from his last tenure in 2008. The Rev. Forsyth may deliver the sermon but what will happen once the church doors close and the pub doors open is anyone's guess. We shall see, can't be many more sleeps till the WLR is released.
Toot toot.
The real AOPA support for NTSB initiative...
Before moving on from my last I noted the following article from the real AOPA:
The statement in the NTSB 2014 Most Wanted list says...
".....GENERAL AVIATION: IDENTIFY AND COMMUNICATE HAZARDOUS WEATHER
A frequent cause or contributing factor to general aviation accidents is hazardous weather. While having weather information available to pilots, air traffic controllers, and meteorologists is crucial, proper understanding and use of this information is just as critical...."
And from the NTSB SR letter to the FAA
IMO this is a perfect example of how a State signatory to ICAO Annex 13 (Chapter 8) is supposed to act. There is no obfuscating of responsibilities to the Annex; there is no resources spared in getting the message across; there is no arguing the toss by the regulator; and ultimately all stakeholders respect the NTSB initiative and get on with appropriately addressing the significant safety issues highlighted.
Wonder if the TSBC will have picked up on this stark difference in methodology, interpretation and compliance by the ATsBeaker to Annex 13??
Oh well moving on...
As "K" points out the WLR report release is imminent, as is the TSBC report...
Not to mention Senate Estimates (Monday week) and the continued Senate debate on the Govt response to the AAI report. All in all a busy couple of weeks for the miniscule and his minions..."let the games begin!"
NTSB seeks better weather delivery
Urges FAA, National Weather Service to improve communication with pilots
In 2010, a Cessna 182R struck mountains near Corvallis, Ore., with two fatalities. The following year, a Eurocopter with five on board struck mountains on the island of Molokai, Hawaii. Another person was killed in 2012, when a Gulfstream jet impacted terrain in Oregon, and four people died in 2013 when a Mooney M20E hit terrain shortly after departure from Angel Fire, N.M.
In each of these cases, weather forecasts provided to the public noted more severe weather conditions than were detailed in aviation weather provided to the flight crews, and the National Transportation Safety Board issued on May 6 a call for the FAA and National Weather Service to improve weather forecast delivery to general aviation pilots.
“What’s difficult to understand is why weather advisories from the National Weather Service to the general public, at times, provide more comprehensive information about weather conditions than the advisories they provide to pilots experiencing the same conditions,” said NTSB Board Member Earl Weener, in a news release. “Why pilots would receive less information makes no sense, and increases the risk of flying in severe weather conditions. That is why this issue is on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List.”
The accidents were detailed in letters sent May 6 to FAA and NWS leaders, seeking action on recommendations to improve forecast data delivery to pilots. Improved aviation weather information distribution is among the items on the agency’s 2014 Most Wanted list, which is updated annually based on accident trends in all forms of transportation.
The announcement follows the May 1 launch of the “Got Weather?” campaign by the FAA and aviation groups including the AOPA Foundation’s Air Safety Institute. That effort will include a variety of weather education products developed by the Air Safety Institute and other organizations that focus on specific weather conditions that have contributed to accidents, with a goal of making pilots better informed, and more aware of forecast information sources and other available weather products.
The NTSB recommendations issued May 6 focus on improving situational awareness for pilots and controllers, and better disseminating important weather information within the aviation system.
“Safety will be enhanced for airmen and their passengers when pilots are given a complete weather report including all of the most current weather information,” Weener said.
Urges FAA, National Weather Service to improve communication with pilots
In 2010, a Cessna 182R struck mountains near Corvallis, Ore., with two fatalities. The following year, a Eurocopter with five on board struck mountains on the island of Molokai, Hawaii. Another person was killed in 2012, when a Gulfstream jet impacted terrain in Oregon, and four people died in 2013 when a Mooney M20E hit terrain shortly after departure from Angel Fire, N.M.
In each of these cases, weather forecasts provided to the public noted more severe weather conditions than were detailed in aviation weather provided to the flight crews, and the National Transportation Safety Board issued on May 6 a call for the FAA and National Weather Service to improve weather forecast delivery to general aviation pilots.
“What’s difficult to understand is why weather advisories from the National Weather Service to the general public, at times, provide more comprehensive information about weather conditions than the advisories they provide to pilots experiencing the same conditions,” said NTSB Board Member Earl Weener, in a news release. “Why pilots would receive less information makes no sense, and increases the risk of flying in severe weather conditions. That is why this issue is on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List.”
The accidents were detailed in letters sent May 6 to FAA and NWS leaders, seeking action on recommendations to improve forecast data delivery to pilots. Improved aviation weather information distribution is among the items on the agency’s 2014 Most Wanted list, which is updated annually based on accident trends in all forms of transportation.
The announcement follows the May 1 launch of the “Got Weather?” campaign by the FAA and aviation groups including the AOPA Foundation’s Air Safety Institute. That effort will include a variety of weather education products developed by the Air Safety Institute and other organizations that focus on specific weather conditions that have contributed to accidents, with a goal of making pilots better informed, and more aware of forecast information sources and other available weather products.
The NTSB recommendations issued May 6 focus on improving situational awareness for pilots and controllers, and better disseminating important weather information within the aviation system.
“Safety will be enhanced for airmen and their passengers when pilots are given a complete weather report including all of the most current weather information,” Weener said.
".....GENERAL AVIATION: IDENTIFY AND COMMUNICATE HAZARDOUS WEATHER
A frequent cause or contributing factor to general aviation accidents is hazardous weather. While having weather information available to pilots, air traffic controllers, and meteorologists is crucial, proper understanding and use of this information is just as critical...."
And from the NTSB SR letter to the FAA
Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration:
Ensure that all Federal Aviation Administration (and contracted) preflight weather briefings include any products modified or created by the National Weather Service in response to Safety Recommendation A-14-17. (A-14-13)
Require that the National Weather Service (NWS) provide a primary aviation weather product (as recommended in Safety Recommendation A-14-18 to the NWS) that specifically addresses the potential for and existence of mountain wave activity and its associated aviation weather hazards. (A-14-14)
In cooperation with the National Weather Service (NWS), revise the Interagency Agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/NWS for the center weather service units (CWSU) and its accompanying statement of work if needed to add the new responsibilities of CWSU personnel in response to Safety Recommendations A-14-17 and/or A-14-18 to the NWS, which are in addition to the other responsibilities currently performed by the NWS under this agreement.(A-14-15)
Include centerweather advisories in the suite of products available to pilots via the flight information services-broadcast data link. (A-14-16)
The NTSB also issued five safety recommendations to the National Weather Service.
Acting Chairman HART and Members SUMWALT,ROSEKIND, and WEENER concurred in these recommendations.
The NTSB is vitally interested in these recommendations because they are designed to prevent accidents and save lives. We would appreciate receiving a response from you within 90days detailing the actions you have taken or intend to take to implement them. When replying, please refer to the safety recommendations by number. We encourage you to submit your response electronically to [email protected].
Ensure that all Federal Aviation Administration (and contracted) preflight weather briefings include any products modified or created by the National Weather Service in response to Safety Recommendation A-14-17. (A-14-13)
Require that the National Weather Service (NWS) provide a primary aviation weather product (as recommended in Safety Recommendation A-14-18 to the NWS) that specifically addresses the potential for and existence of mountain wave activity and its associated aviation weather hazards. (A-14-14)
In cooperation with the National Weather Service (NWS), revise the Interagency Agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/NWS for the center weather service units (CWSU) and its accompanying statement of work if needed to add the new responsibilities of CWSU personnel in response to Safety Recommendations A-14-17 and/or A-14-18 to the NWS, which are in addition to the other responsibilities currently performed by the NWS under this agreement.(A-14-15)
Include centerweather advisories in the suite of products available to pilots via the flight information services-broadcast data link. (A-14-16)
The NTSB also issued five safety recommendations to the National Weather Service.
Acting Chairman HART and Members SUMWALT,ROSEKIND, and WEENER concurred in these recommendations.
The NTSB is vitally interested in these recommendations because they are designed to prevent accidents and save lives. We would appreciate receiving a response from you within 90days detailing the actions you have taken or intend to take to implement them. When replying, please refer to the safety recommendations by number. We encourage you to submit your response electronically to [email protected].
Wonder if the TSBC will have picked up on this stark difference in methodology, interpretation and compliance by the ATsBeaker to Annex 13??
Oh well moving on...
As "K" points out the WLR report release is imminent, as is the TSBC report...
Not to mention Senate Estimates (Monday week) and the continued Senate debate on the Govt response to the AAI report. All in all a busy couple of weeks for the miniscule and his minions..."let the games begin!"
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upcoming Senate Overestimates
Beaker, aka 'Count de Money' strategizing how to overcome the issue of the IOS revolt;
P.S Whisper on the street is that there will only be a 3.25% rise in pot plant allowances in line with the CPI, rather than the usual endless tin of money.
P.S Whisper on the street is that there will only be a 3.25% rise in pot plant allowances in line with the CPI, rather than the usual endless tin of money.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off to the races.
It's coming from all directions for Truss: had the Senate committee not been gazumped by the WLR, I reckon that by now we'd be a long way down the road where a statement like this would be superfluous.
The big question (IMO) is what will Truss do? – if anything – track record and form considered. You don't need to pull a horse up to loose a race, just give it an outing doing the minimum legally required (look like you're trying), rather than going all out. Looking at the BRB tote board, there's some small money for a late scratching, some of the pragmatic money is on 'an outing' rather than an all out effort to win; but most of the cynical money is bet on a 'token' effort, made with heavy reliance on 'interference' being called in the final furlongs. Result, our horse finishing fourth (out of the money) with a credible excuse for the mug punters when the stewards rule against the claimed 'interference'.
The smart money is on the Senate entry in the next race – the Conscience cup – a classic race with only the top weight for age performers invited. Save your pennies for this one; but, always said it, punting is a mugs game.
Sarcs # 1935 "IMO this is a perfect example of how a State signatory to ICAO Annex 13 (Chapter 8) is supposed to act. There is no obfuscating of responsibilities to the Annex; there is no resources spared in getting the message across; there is no arguing the toss by the regulator; and ultimately all stakeholders respect the NTSB initiative and get on with appropriately addressing the significant safety issues highlighted.
Wonder if the TSBC will have picked up on this stark difference in methodology, interpretation and compliance by the ATsBeaker to Annex 13?
Wonder if the TSBC will have picked up on this stark difference in methodology, interpretation and compliance by the ATsBeaker to Annex 13?
The smart money is on the Senate entry in the next race – the Conscience cup – a classic race with only the top weight for age performers invited. Save your pennies for this one; but, always said it, punting is a mugs game.
Last edited by Kharon; 17th May 2014 at 21:21. Reason: Don't blame me, I only keep the odds and lay the bets.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
BYO bucket 'weasel words' incoming!!
AQONs have finally been released, see here...
Sampling..
On CVD... QON No 197:
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:
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!
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.
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.
"...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.
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.
"...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!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..."
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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:
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 non–government 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…
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.
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 non–government 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…
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and rest assured they will regroup and once again take revenge upon the IOS Jedi council.
the reality is that they can be sued for abuse of power. ....and probably will be if the activities are revenge based.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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