Merged: Senate Inquiry

[Frank Arouet]

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.
　

[Sunfish]

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!

[Kharon]

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 -

[Sarcs]

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..

[Up-into-the-air]

Senator Fawcett grills ATSB head - Dolan in tonights Senate estimates

The Senate grilling of atsb head beaker has proved interesting, with Senator Fawcett pressing for answers.

This gives some up to date material.

Senator Fawcett grills ATSB head - Dolan | Assistance to the Aviation Industry

[dubbleyew eight]

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

[004wercras]

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

[brissypilot]

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

[Sarcs]

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

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_shiIWF9c5U

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 medivac 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..

[004wercras]

Pinstripe suits, some pony pooh and a day at the Senate!

A couple of enjoyable videos brissypilot and sarcs, thanks for posting them.

Snakes and ladders video 1: My oh my, didn't the Angry Man look uncomfortable at times while attempting to answer the astute Fawcetts line of questions? On occasions Herr Skull looked like a youngling desperately searching for its Momma's teat, looking this way and that, desperate to be nurtured, fed and changed, to find protection in the bosom of its comforter In this case Uncle Mike was right there beside you, using his shoulders and giant head to provide you with a shelter from the wind, a safe place to run too.

Snakes and Ladders video 2: The beardless Beaker, head bobbing away, rolling the eyes, mi mi mi-ing. At times he too looked ever so uncomfortable, like a teenage boy trying not to get caught whacking off over a K-Mart underwear catalogue! He looks right, he looks left, he doesn't know what to do! But don't worry Beaker, Uncle Mike, aka Pumpkin Head is right there beside you, whispering words of comfort, trying to sooth your nerves and guide you through the embarrassment of being caught out doing a terrible thing

The body language on those beneath the spotlight was most amusing (except for Terry the cardboard cutout who customarily sat silent in an almost deathlike state, hiding behind his glasses and ever expanding paunch!)
Fawcett and Xenophon, the dapper Senators remained articulate, poised, focused and engaged. Surely they could smell blood? Surely they could smell that familiar smell of A grade, bureaucratic, steaming warm ****e wafting from the Prisoners corner?? Surely the Senators could see the whites of the eyes of those on trial, the nervousness in their throats, the suit restricting twitches and expressions of discomfort on the Prisoners faces?

In preparation for the next instalment of Senate fun and hijinks I have just looked at my checklist;

- Comfortable seat in front of Poohtube/Parliament TV - Tick
- Beer, popcorn and a plate of Antipasto - Tick
- Box of tissues to wipe away tears of laughter - Tick
- Chamber pot close by to allow for quick urination so I don't miss a thing - Tick

Kudos to the IOS honorary members, Messrs Fawcett and Xenophon

[Sarcs]

Senate Estimates poohtube entertainment

004:

My oh my, didn't the Angry Man look uncomfortable at times while attempting to answer the astute Fawcetts line of questions?....In this case Uncle Mike was right there beside you, using his shoulders and giant head to provide you with a shelter from the wind, a safe place to run too.

Love it 004, gave me a chuckle... All true except for the moment McComic went into his hollow-worded Part II Section 9 rant.....the rest of the time he seemed desperate to try to defer to his sub-continent PMO but DF wouldn't let him...

On the Beaker performance don't you just want to wipe that smug look off his face, that and nail (bolt) his vibrating left leg to the floor...

Here's a couple more poohtube vids where the Beaker features, the first Fawcett questions him on the Govt response to R21 'safety issues' & 'safety recommendations' ATsBeaker (beyond all sensible reason) approach :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkfhnXqvWtU

The second Fawcett questions Beaker on the rise in UAV incidents and the Heff hops into Beaker, which is truly good theatre...:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhmqerh6DNU

MTF with vid segments from 'ASA', 'Aviation & Airports'...

[Jinglie]

ATSBeaker!!!

Sarcs,

I just watched Dolan mumbling to Senator Fawcett about the Commissioners and Safety Recommendations. Top job to get paid a bucket load when the actually don't make any Safety Recommendations!!
What's worse is none of them have any aviation experience!! what a joke
This is a disgrace, Truss, do something!!!!!

[SIUYA]

Jinglie said:

Top job to get paid a bucket load when the actually don't make any Safety Recommendations!! What's worse is none of them have any aviation experience!!

You bet!

From the ATSB Annual Report, the total reportable remuneration for the one ATSB staff member with a reportable salary >$300K (ie., the highest paid person) was $325,926 in 2013, and $367,874 in 2012.

As there was only one staff member with a salary >$300K, I suppose that was Tweedledumb.

Don't count on him having taken a pay-cut in 2013 though, as is suggested by the 2013 pay compared to the 2012 pay, because the weasel words in the ATSB report note that the variation of salary within the band between 2012-13 and 2011-12 was due to the...

'...timing of the final payment of the respective staff member's Total Remuneration Package.'

Whatever the fcuk that means.

But having watched Dolan's performance in front of Senator Xenaphon, I came to the conclusion that he is totally out of his depth, and so on that basis he therefore seems to be grossly overpaid.

And 'YES' Jinglie, this is a disgrace that Truss is not doing anything to remedy the situation.

[004wercras]

Is Beaker himself a UAV?

More excellent questioning from Fawcett. This is a bloke who understands risk management, unlike the mi mi mi muppets in charge of the ATsB and CAsA asylums How embarrassing that Beaker, the master bean counter/ex Comcare/ex department of agriculture/ex CFO/excrement can't answer a question about strict liability?? Back to the abacus and law books for you Herr Beaker. Doesn't know, puuuuuulease Mr Beaker, stop, I have a sore throat from laughing
And all that head bobbing, mi mi mi-ing and uncomfortable movements, could Beaker himself be a drone? I think yes!!

And the Heff! What about him! Straight for the Beakers jugular, nice work. These things only weigh 2kg and are pretty much unregulated, no worries, no risk there. And importantly we shall shelve any reports, fail to close the loop, and wait till a UAV ends up in a Roller and there is an accident, then we will re-look at the unclosed cases. Hell says Beaker, it works for CAsA!

The Senate, unfortunately, has become a circus, a comedy act, a titter on the stand up comedy stage. It is a place where the Senators have an understanding of safety, risk mitigation, investigative processes and regulations. However the $300 - $500k bureaucrats steering the departments are an embarrassment to Australia and to our industry and don't know **** from clay. Surely this **** is a bad dream? You couldn't script something so ridiculous.

TICK TOCK

[Sarcs]

Albo, Beaker's budget BS & ASA 'Just Culture'?

Hansard for 26/05 Estimates is out. Links for ATsB, CAsA, ASA

The former Labor Govt 'savings through stealth' program and the former miniscule Albo's spin & bulldust was touched on briefly in the ATsBeaker Estimates segment. From the ATsB Hansard:

Senator FAWCETT:When did the budget pressures commence that led to your requirement to bid for supplementary funding around redundancies?


Mr Dolan: We had been signalling for a considerable period of time that the forward estimates would require us to reduce our staff, because we had found all other savings mechanisms and used them already. Having had discussions with various parties, we concluded that to find a sustainable position going into the next financial year, 2014-15, we needed to undertake a redundancy program with our staff. As a result of that, by the start of next financial year we will have reduced our staff by 12 from 110 to 98.

Senator FAWCETT:So that funding that you are applying for is coming from the funding that was given to finance as part of the MYEFO process, is that correct?

Mr Dolan: That is correct.

Senator FAWCETT:In practice, then, these 12 staff that you are losing, you are losing because of decisions of the former government, but the current government is having to fund it because the former government, whilst leading to the redundancies, did not fund you to actually make those people redundant?

Mr Dolan: The decisions in relation to staffing were based on the forward estimates as they were recorded in the portfolio budget statements in the last budget. We had contemplated a staff separation program from our own resources, given that we had reserves. But, given there was a government policy decision to make funding available to support those staff separations, we applied for it and had success as a result.

Not that he had any credibility before, but this is what the audacious Albo said in parliament on the 18 March 2014 (warning weasel words incoming..)...

“….As I mentioned earlier, Labor supports a bipartisan approach to aviation safety. It is too important to be a political battleground. However, there is a role for an opposition to raise concerns about the direction of some government policy, and earlier this month there were reports that the government was considering staff cuts of up to 20 per cent in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The ATSB employs 110 people. They investigate accidents, safety concerns and near misses in air, sea and rail transport.

These cuts should not be considered by government. There is a need to quarantine ATSB—just like CASA and other safety organisations, like the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Their task is simply too important to cut corners by cutting costs and cutting staff, and I would hope that the government maintains at least the support that is there for these agencies…”

Even the man at the back of the room can see the spin in that statement from Albo.... I guess that is typical SOP for pollies the calibre of Albo these days..., but what about the rumour of a 20% further cut to the bureau staff?? Later in the ATsBeaker segment, under questioning from Senator Sterle, puts that rumour to rest:

Senator STERLE: Mr Dolan, page 165 of the PBS shows the program 1.1 expenses table, where it talks about you guys having to do some serious downsizing through one of your programs and how you can operate on a financially sustainable footing from 2014 to 2015. There is no doubt that there seems to be a large drop in resourcing for ATSB's operations following the staff reductions—11 per cent, I think it is, on last year, which is on page 172. Are you aware of the government's request to make savings of $60 million across the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio?

Mr Dolan : I am aware of a proposal to make savings to industry as a result of changing the regulatory framework—

Senator STERLE: Mr Mrdak, can you confirm it is $60 million?

Mr Mrdak : That is the portfolio target to reduce costs to industry, yes.

Senator STERLE: Since September, Mr Dolan, has the department requested further savings from your agency on top of that?

Mr Dolan : We have been given an initial indicative figure.

Senator STERLE: There is that word again: indicative. Keep going.

Mr Dolan : There is a current review of the overall framework. Within that, our major regulatory intervention is our mandatory reporting program.

Senator STERLE: So, indicatively, how much are you looking at trying to save?

Mr Dolan : The indicative figure for the ATSB is $7 million.

Senator STERLE: Do you reckon you will get there?

Mr Dolan : My apologies, it is seven per cent, which is $4 million.

Senator STERLE: How do you reckon you will go?

Mr Dolan : What we have to review over time is whether there are more efficient ways of helping people mandatorily report occurrences to us. That is the mechanism that we have to look at in terms of improving the impact on industry.

Senator STERLE: Forgive me, but what does that actually mean in English?

Mr Dolan : Some of the steps we are already taking include better web enabled reporting, drawing on the existing systems of operators and so on for notification of occurrences, a potential review as to whether we are seeking over-reporting from particular elements of the industry and so on—to make the mandatory reporting program, which is fundamental to safety, work more efficiently.

Senator STERLE: I am just a bit worried when we talk about safety and trying to find efficiencies through agencies after you had an 11 per cent downsizing program last year—was it 11 per cent?

Mr Dolan : Yes.

Senator STERLE: I would think that would be a very difficult figure to achieve. How long do you have to try to achieve that $4 million saving?

Mr Dolan : That was an indicative first-year figure, as I recall it. We will review what we can and form an assessment as to what, as you say, in a safety focused regulatory framework we can reasonably achieve in reducing costs to industry.

So Albo/Mrdak/Beaker rubberstamped the cuts to, what some would say is the bureau's most valuable resource, staff. Yet Beaker now believes, that through other efficiencies, he will be able to make a $4 million saving over the forward Estimates, certainly get a sense of this Muppet's priorities while he remains in the CC position... Hopefully those dozen redundancies were not frontline staff...

Oh well moving on..

Unlike the embuggerised bureau & Fort Fumble, ASA of late seem to be copping less scrutiny in Estimates. However there was an interesting moment when AVM (active) Staib bristled when being questioned by Senator X on the operational introduction of the Integrated Tower Automation Suite (INTAS):

Senator XENOPHON: And can you assure me that as a result of this specific line of questioning there will not be any emails or oral communication to your staff for this line of questioning? I am just worried about the issue retribution.

Ms Staib : That is a serious suggestion.

Senator XENOPHON: I am not suggesting that you will do it; I just want to know that you will not be doing it.

Ms Staib : Absolutely not. We value our just culture in Airservices and all these faults are reported by the air traffic controllers so we can investigate them.

Senator XENOPHON: But perhaps I can suggest to you that while 'just culture' is absolutely critical in aviation, given the nature of the industry and the nature of what you have to deal with that was not necessarily the case under your predecessor. I know you cannot comment on it, but I am just suggesting to you that that was not necessarily the case.

Ms Staib : You know that we have been working on a culture program in Airservices, and one of the values that I have added to the values for Airservices is the value of courage, and that is specifically about having the courage to speak up, speak out, challenge managers and leaders, because it is very important that people do that to maintain those safety aspects that you refer to.

Hmm..'Just Culture' within ASA is a touchy subject for Ms Staib.... Pity we don't have the same dedication & understanding by the other muppets on the importance of upholding the principles of 'Just Culture' within the other agencies..

Anyway here is the poohtube segment for those interested:

Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - Xenophon & Airservices - YouTube

[Jinglie]

Flying High II

If the Zucker brothers ever make a follow up to Flying High (1981), they would have to have Beaker as a key character. It would be a blockbuster comedy!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Worth watching that clip. Senator Sterle getting increasingly annoyed about questions being taken on notice. Think I heard something along the lines of paid sh1t loads of money and can't answer any questions. Senator Xenophon then warning about potential retribution issues.

[Sarcs]

Sundy QASAtation: BASR & APOD

Definition: APOD – A point of difference.

Word is the miniscule was presented with the WLR report on Friday, which he will make public on Tuesday and the TSBC review report will now be delayed till the end of June...

OK ‘what will be will be?’

While we continue to contemplate our navels let us reflect on the poohtube vid that Jinglie refers…“I just watched Dolan mumbling to Senator Fawcett about the Commissioners and Safety Recommendations. Top job to get paid a bucket load when the actually don't make any Safety Recommendations...”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkfhnXqvWtU" target="_blank">www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkfhnXqvWtU

Apparently, for the sole purpose of austerity (i.e. limited resources), we now seem to be the only signatory state to ICAO that has significant notified (BASR – Beyond all sensible Reason) differences to both Annex 13 & 19.

From Annex 13: Safety recommendation. A proposal of an accident investigation authority based on information derived from an investigation, made with the intention of preventing accidents or incidents and which in no case has the purpose of creating a presumption of blame or liability for an accident or incident. In addition to safety recommendations arising from accident and incident investigations, safety recommendations may result from diverse sources, including safety studies.

And Australia’s ND to that definition (my bold): Safety Recommendation - Essence of definition adopted in legislation and in policy and procedures documents. However, Australia reserves the term safety recommendation for making formal recommendations which are used as a last resort.

Beaker has argued the point (verbatim) that a SR (BASR) will only ever be issued as a last resort if identified safety issues are not proactively addressed by the addressee. This BASR approach is in direct contradiction to the practices/methodology of every other 1st world country and tier one signatories (which includes some resource limited 3rd world countries) to ICAO.

One of those countries that strongly adhere to the, ICAO endorsed, SR methodology is Canada (see here). To reinforce their commitment to upholding the (i.e. Annex 13 ‘spirit and intent’) SR methodology, the Canucks also take the additional step to reissue SRs when outstanding SRs have not been adequately addressed:

Reassessing outstanding safety recommendations to ensure accountability
Gatineau, Quebec, 30 May 2014 - Urging industry and regulators to take action on a number of outstanding safety recommendations, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) today released its annual reassessment of responses to Board recommendations. The reassessments show that progress has been slow especially in Aviation where only 61% of the Board's recommendations have been implemented.
Again this year, the aviation sector has seen limited movement on recommendations. While 5 recommendations have received the TSB’s highest rating of “fully satisfactory”, another 32 remain unresolved. Indeed, 6 of the 32 have been classed as “dormant” as the TSB foresees no action on the part of the regulator. The TSB remains committed to the Watchlist goal of reducing landing accidents and runway overruns where there are a number of outstanding recommendations including calls on Transport Canada (TC) for longer runway safety end areas or a means of stopping aircraft that provides an equivalent level of safety.

The SR/safety issue is very much an APOD with the TSBC and the ATsBeaker investigative methodology, and therefore very much falls within the ToR of the TSBC peer review. Hopefully the Canucks will point out this discrepancy and include a recommendation with some instructional guidance on how best to administer a proper transparent and effective SR/safety issue system.

IMO Beaker’s politically correct BASR is absolute BOLLOCKs…

APOD ICAO (Safety Recommendation system in practice) vs ATsBeaker (politically correct) BASR system – In the ATsB final report of the investigation into the ditching of VH-NGA under the heading Organisational and management information the bureau made the following cursory summary of CAsA’s oversight of PelAir…

“…The regulatory requirements affecting the flight were administered by CASA and established a number of risk controls for the operation that were promulgated in the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) and CAOs. Those controls related to the operator, the pilot in command (PIC) and the conduct of the flight. Surveillance was carried out by CASA of operators’ procedures and operations to ensure that such flights were conducted in accordance with those approvals and the relevant regulations and orders…”

…but after the findings of the Senate AAI inquiry and on CAsA’s own admissions (& the Chamberpot report), there were many obvious deficiencies in the regulator’s oversight of the PelAir Operation that were contributory to the ditching.

However in the ATsB’s blinkered view these safety issues were not significant enough to issue either a significant safety issue or SR to the regulator and the rest is history.

The NTSB have recently issued two SRs to the FAA (one of these SRs was listed as URGENT) in regards to concerns for the regulatory oversight of one of the largest Air Carrier (Part 135, Part 121) operators in the State of Alaska. The following is the background synopsis for those SRs…

“…Since 2012, the NTSB has investigated six accidents and one incident related to operators owned by HoTH, Inc. On September 5, 2012, about 1100 Alaska daylight time (AKDT), Era Aviation (dba Era Alaska) flight 874, a Bombardier DHC-8-103, N886EA, experienced an uncommanded left roll consistent with a stall and uncontrolled descent during climb about 12,000 ft mean sea level (msl) near Soldotna, Alaska.2 The flight crew regained control of the airplane about 7,000 ft msl, and the flight returned to Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC), Anchorage, Alaska. The 12 passengers and 3 crew members were not injured, and the airplane was not damaged. The airplane was being operated under the provisions of 14Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight between ANC and Homer Airport (HOM), Homer, Alaska. Day instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) prevailed at the time of the incident. This incident is currently under investigation…”

And these are the SRs:

Conduct a comprehensive audit of the regulatory compliance and operational safety programs in place at operators owned by HoTH, Inc., to include an assessment of their flight operations, training, maintenance and inspection, and safety management programs, and ensure that permanent corrective action is implemented for all adverse findings. This audit should be conducted by a team of inspectors from outside Alaska. (A-14-22) (Urgent)

Conduct a comprehensive audit of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 and Part 121 certificates held by operators owned by HoTH, Inc., and ensure that permanent corrective action is implemented for all adverse findings. This audit should be conducted by a team of inspectors from outside Alaska and should include a review of inspector qualifications, turnover, working relationships between the FAA and operators owned by HoTH, Inc., and workload to determine whether staffing is sufficient. (A-14-23)

Which is followed by…

“…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 30days regarding A-14-22 (Urgent) and 90 days regarding A-14-23 detailing the actions you have taken or intend to take to implement them…”

Through the user friendly NTSB SR system, it is also possible to actively monitor the outcomes of these SRs:

Rec #: A-14-022 (Click for link)
NTSB Status: Open - Await Response
Issue date: 5/1/2014
Accident Date: 9/5/2012
Source Event:
Location: Soldotna Alaska
Mode: Aviation
Most Wanted List: No
Closed date:

Report Number:
Accident ID: DCA12IA141

View Status by Addressee

View NTSB Recommendation Letter [PDF]

Rec #: A-14-023 (Click for link)
NTSB Status: Open - Await Response
Issue date: 5/1/2014
Accident Date: 9/5/2012
Source Event:
Location: Soldotna Alaska
Mode: Aviation
Most Wanted List: No
Closed date:

Report Number:
Accident ID: DCA12IA141

View Status by Addressee

View NTSB Recommendation Letter [PDF]

Certainly is a lot to like about the NTSB/TSBC board system and it is obvious that they are truly operating independently and unencumbered by the regulator.

From the last Estimates it was revealed that the ATsB is beholden to the same budgetary efficiencies ($60 million savings to industry) as the rest of the Dept, IMO this further stresses the Annex 19 requirement that the ‘State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations’.

Maybe part of the problem with the bureau is that they fall under the Dept and consideration should be put to oversight and funding for the bureau to come (like the TSBC & NTSB) directly from the parliament, food for thought!

[Kharon]

A question, or two.

004 # 1963 –"The Senate, unfortunately, has become a circus, a comedy act, a titter on the stand up comedy stage. It is a place where the Senators have an understanding of safety, risk mitigation, investigative processes and regulations. However the $300 - $500k bureaucrats steering the departments are an embarrassment to Australia and to our industry"

It is clear that the 'department' teams are outplayed, outclassed and without the doughty Mrdak would be decimated by the WVA knitting circle, let alone a united, well briefed, on form Senate team. So why is it that:-

(a) these departmental wallahs feel they can treat the Senate with open contempt, thinly disguised disrespect and expect to be believed?

(b) the work done by the Senate committee is seemingly viewed and treated as 'irrelevant'. What's the point of them doing all the heavy lifting if they can be just be shooed away, like so many noisy children?

Perhaps Creamy, or Sunny or Lead Sled (one of the grown ups) can make the picture clearer; because I just don't get it.

I know – thick as two short planks M'lud: but the questions stand.

[Creampuff]

It’s simple: The departmental and agency officials know that it’s all bluff.

If government intervened and took control, government would be responsible. Better to leave responsibility to the departmental and agency officials. That’s why they are so handsomely rewarded.

It works a treat: Most of the aviation industry will continue to blame the officials, most of the time.