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

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 5th Jul 2014, 03:53
  #2001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So what happens now we have a new Senate?

Please tell me the fate of the Aviation sector isn't left to Ricky Muir?

nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 07:26
  #2002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nah... Jacqui Lambie
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 22:15
  #2003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't care.

The embarrassing antics of Beaker and his motley crew don't concern me; SMS is a better system, tailor made solutions to 'local' problems are much more direct, accurate, effective, less time consuming and importantly are provided within a very short space of time, to those that need them and are drafted by professionals. ATSB is essentially putting it's self out of work, if that's what you call it; for the majority of incidents and accidents. I can see a day when all we need is one man, sat in an office, rubber stamping industry reports, to make them official, then turn the whole thing over to the lawyers and let them wrangle over who did what, to whom, and when. That's where we are now; so why not just cut out the middle man.

No doubt they'll ponce about on the 'high profile' jobs, getting under everyone's feet and carrying heavy things for CASA, trying to be the significant other. I wish them all well. I'll wave as the ghosts of Alan Stray, Mac Job and the other legends fade into the mists; replaced by the mediocrity of Beaker speak, the dust of administration and the happy clappy world of Bureau babble.

In the natural world – toothless tiger die of starvation and in my jungle, leopards do not change their spots.

Nope, not a rats arse worth.

Last edited by Kharon; 5th Jul 2014 at 22:17. Reason: Nice one PNM...big smile.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 22:56
  #2004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Once a muppet always a muppet.

While we continue to wait for the miniscule to blink on the Forsyth report it should not be forgotten that Fort Fumble’s now feeble (and much poorer) sister is in much need of reform and (much like FF) a re-establishment of IOS trust...

If the rumour be true on bean counter Beaker??

If the miniscule is not prepared to extract his hand out of the Beaker muppet, I’m with “K” let’s save the dosh and completely disband the ATsB (at least for the aviation section of their remit).

Even as a media spokesman Beaker cannot hide his true colours (BASR philosophy) and it appears that the international community is catching on. Quote from a recent article published by the Malaysia Chronicle titled - MH370: Why have searchers refused to check out UNIDENTIFIED WRECK spotted in Bay of Bengal?:

“…The main reason for ignoring the location is the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) Chairman Martin Dolan making a statement that GeoResonance methodology cannot do what we claim. This is without ever having anyone contacting GeoResonance for a technical presentation. This slanderous and ignorant statement by a senior public servant is unfathomable when GeoResonance regularly produces accurate results for commercial clients around the globe…”
If the ATsB is to regain a fraction of its once enviable reputation the muppet simply has to go. Perhaps, as “K” says, this will inevitably be left to the Senate to hammer home, because I have no doubt that Senator X & Fawcett will not entertain the idea of Beaker remaining in the position.

From Nick’s adjournment speech 04 March ’14…

“…The committee was so concerned with Mr Dolan's comments on this front that it stated in its report:

Mr Dolan's evidence in this regard is questionable and has seriously eroded his standing as a witness before the committee.

This is an incredibly strong statement in regard to a senior public servant. I do not understand how Mr Dolan's position in the ATSB is tenable. And yet, neither the previous government nor the current government has formally responded to the committee's report—but I understand it is coming shortly
…”


Nick then goes on to mention the TSBC peer review, the report of which is now long overdue :
“…However, it emerged in Senate estimates just last week that the Canadian TSB have only reviewed the investigation on the documents. They have not interviewed the individuals involved in the incident and those individuals who provided extensive evidence, such as Mr Quinn and Mr Aherne, even though those individuals are very critical of the ATSB's processes. As I understand it, they have not spoken to members of the Senate committee or even to CASA.
Given the many issues regarding oversight and transparency that were raised in the committee report, this is incredibly concerning. It is hard to understand how the Canadian TSB can produce a useful or meaningful view without digging further than the surface documents. This should not be a tick and flick exercise…”

IMO even if the TSBC report (when it finally arrives) is slightly favourable to the ATsBeaker regime, the muppet is still a muppet and should be returned to the toy box from which he came.

The miniscule needs to realise that there is much more than the reputation of the ATsB riding on this; & if mishandled by playing petty politics, the whole reputation of Australia as an original signatory to ICAO could be put at jeopardy, not to mention it could see his Dept Head Red with his head on a stick.

From Red’s blurb (foreword) in the State Safety Program (Annex 19): Foreword
“…Australia supports the efforts of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to establish Safety Programs for member States to better ensure effective integration of aviation safety standards and practices. This builds on the approach endorsed by ICAO to have air transport operators, airports, air navigation and maintenance service providers and other critical aviation operations establish comprehensive safety management systems to guide the management of the range of activities involved in ensuring safety…”
Besides a ‘Just Culture’ philosophy (which requires industry trust with CAsA & the ATsB), what is integral to a successful SSP (Annex 19) is for the State to have a fully independent Aviation Accident Investigation organisation. Under the annex the State (miniscule and his Dept i.e. ‘Red’) must insure that the ATsB is sufficiently funded to meet its obligations under Annex 13 and (Annex 19 Attachment A para 1.3)…

“…In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations…”

I would argue that until such time as the recommendations of the AAI inquiry report are adequately addressed and Beaker is replaced, that Red & the miniscule are putting at severe risk our compliance with ICAO and Annex 19.

TICK…TOCK miniscule and FFS get on with it mate!

MTF..

Last edited by Sarcs; 9th Jul 2014 at 00:42.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 01:33
  #2005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A matter of privilege.

Senator Xenophon has found one of three who have felt the hot breath of 'revenge' for being a witness or participating in the Truss WLR.

This is serious stuff; anyone who has been 'touched inappropriately' after daring to criticise or bear witness should contact the 'good' Senators a.s.a.p. They are interested.

A matter of privilege.

Don't be shy...
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 02:42
  #2006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PelAir Inquiry & Senator X notice of motion 10/07/14

PelAir Inquiry & Senator X notice of motion 10/07/14

Interesting development, first cab off the rank in the Senate this morning was a NX NoM for the following to be referred to the Senate Committee of Privileges for investigation & report:






Poohtube link…


Any bets anyone??

MTF..Sarcs

Ben Sandilands – Quick off the mark – as usual.

Last edited by Sarcs; 10th Jul 2014 at 05:39. Reason: Add a bit
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 06:45
  #2007 (permalink)  
 
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
Intimidating any witness is a criminal matter is it not?


This will sort out the "privilege" aspect we were all so worried about. Perhaps we can also get to see who had access to the "confidential" submissions. Time lines and applications for extensions suddenly seem important.


If criminality be so, I have a notion that at least one Lawyer is going to have a field day with what he has. I'm guessing any correspondence would be signed so the "buck" can be apportioned to where it stops. I hope NX gets to the nub of this.


These people have no moral compass.


A pox in the lot of them!
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 07:11
  #2008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CAsA treating the Senate with contempt???

Yes of course they have.

Will anything be done about it???

No of course not.

Why not??

See John Quadrio, Polair, Hardies, Airtex, Barrier, etc, etc, etc, etc.

So ??

When they can pervert the course of justice, manufacture evidence, thumb their nose a court orders, commit perjury..etc,etc,etc,etc...without sanction. Why would they be concerned with the Senate?

Surely not!! Has anything ever been done about it??

Nope

Anybody Interested??

One or two but the majority seem too apathetic.

Unfortunately that would seem so.

Supposedly 34,000 pilots in Australia.

A paltry 1400 have signed the petition in support of their fellow pilots. Just shows the me! me! me! its all about me, I'm all right Jake attitude amongst the aviation industry in Australia is alive and well supported by our regulator.

If these things were happening in the US there would be riots in the streets.

Aviation is no different to any other small fragmented industry in Australia, bureaucrats do what bureaucrats do..REGULATE!! err and BREED!!

Which is why so many of our smaller industries, you know the ones that used to employ most people, are collapsing under the burden of over regulation and what is becoming rampant corruption, and its happening because of apathy. Australia is one of the most expensive country in the world to live in. The aviation industry is at the tipping point of sustainability, the whole country is rapidly approaching that point.

When our most educated and wealthy people are talking about emigrating from Australia we have some serious problems.

Frank, the Pox can successfully be treated by antibiotics, lead poisoning is a far better sorter outer!!

Last edited by thorn bird; 10th Jul 2014 at 07:56.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 12:46
  #2009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Frank,
Breach of Parliamentary Privilege is a very serious issue, as i'm sure you're aware. I wonder who provoked the good senator into action? The Screamer has to be odds on favourite, although Beaker is dumb enough to step over the line.
With the rumoured ATSB staff cuts, I wouldn't be surprised if someone within dumped! Should be interesting to watch..........
Jinglie is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 13:33
  #2010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Indeed an interesting development, but I wouldn't get too excited yet, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely so I doubt if any agency executive leaning upon someone else will result in anything significant happening. Don't forget these people are above the law and aren't held accountable for anything....Eddy Obeid, Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper, we all know what they are really about, but nothing gets done.
It wouldn't surprise me though if the Skull is having a hissy and making somebody's life hell in his last two months in the job, then again that fool Beaker is a complete wombat and is stupid enough to also lean on an employee, perhaps over an expenditure issue of $3.00?? And don't forget lads, the GWM are renown for their harassment and bullying exploits. But then again, so is Flyingfiend!

I dunno, so many bullies and hen packed managers with nil spine and small penises to choose from, who could it be???? At least it is fun to watch the Miniscules life being made robustly lame Aagh well Warren, you know how to make all this annoyance go away You can't say you haven't been warned, tosser.

TICK TOCK MINISCULE.
004wercras is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 20:17
  #2011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pick a winner.

In the Sandilands - Plane Talking – article – Ben cites "examples of such offences include":

1) Refusing without reasonable excuse to answer a question;

2) Giving false or misleading evidence;

3) Failing to attend or to produce documents when required to do so;

4) Intimidation of a witness;

5) Adverse treatment of a witness;

6) Wilfully disturbing a committee while it is meeting.

I know of three industry guys under the CASA spotlight, but I'm not betting the house boat that Xenophon is even aware of their existence – as yet. Based on the scant information and looking at the list above, if I were to have a flutter I'd take a trifecta on items 2 and 3, the hard choice would be the stable, both ATSB and CASA publicly indulged their arrogance and contempt for the Senate proceedings, although the ATSB chose to wriggle and slither around the 'law', CASA simply believed themselves – above it.

The pick of the outside chances is from the Quadrio stable – perhaps the intimidation by CASA of their own witness has come to the attention of the Senate; another dark horse is the threat made to some mutt who wanted to meet with the Bored, the response to that also qualifies; also in the running is the Repcon leak and subsequent intimidation of the submitter. Plenty of choices.

So, money where mouth is – Items 2 & 3 – CASA in the box. An off tote (SP) bet on Whistle blower to cover the outlay.

Toot toot ._.
ProAviation has been told that the Dr Hawke wrote to one industry association refuting its submission to the ASRR, and that the organisation rejected what it believed to be “bullying” on his part and brought the matter to Minister Truss’s attention.

Last edited by Kharon; 10th Jul 2014 at 21:05. Reason: more options than the Melbourne Cup...Hard to pick..
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 21:10
  #2012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Morobe
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A paltry 1400 have signed the petition in support of their fellow pilots.
Does this mean that 32,600 pilots agree with CASA in regard to the danger of CDV pilots?
tolakuma manki is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 21:50
  #2013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whatever it might mean, tm, it isn't helpful for the cause of people who want to reign in the zealots in AVMED.

As to all this nonsense about breach of privilege and "offences", the Privileges Committee will conduct an inquiry and produce a report, just like the RRAT Committee conducted an inquiry and produced a report on aviation accident investigation. Paper and hot air ...
Creampuff is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 22:07
  #2014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Morobe
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whatever it might mean, tm, it isn't helpful for the cause of people who want to reign in the zealots in AVMED.
Perhaps one man's zealot is another's rational being.
Then again, could this is a "closed" conversation amongst a few people on the interwebs and of no interest to outsiders? Even those one would consider fellow travellers
tolakuma manki is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 22:41
  #2015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well done Senator Fawcett..

CVD & IOS Senator
hears your angst!

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:55): I rise to make a few comments this evening on the state of aviation and its regulation in Australia. But first I wish to note the appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA board by the government, which I welcome. Mr Boyd has a long history in the aviation industry, as a LAME —understanding the engineering and the mechanical side—as an in-flight instructor and with his ownership and running of Brindabella Airlines. He has a depth of experience which will be very welcome on the board, and I look forward to the government's appointments of other board members in the near future—particularly as the board will have a key role in implementing the recommendations, as the government approves them, from the Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation.

The issue I would like to touch on tonight though is about a small group of people in the aviation environment. One of the characteristics of a plural liberal democracy such as we have here in Australia is that we respect and look after the rights of minorities. Amongst the pilot population in Australia—the estimates vary, but it is well over 30,000—there is a small group, numbering in their hundreds, potentially around 400, who have a colour vision deficiency. For many years—in fact going right back, I think the first publication that dealt with this was in 1926. People made the assumption, as they looked at aircraft deriving from the days of sailing ships and steamships where they had red and green lights for navigation lights, that if a pilot could not discriminate colours, then he was not safe to fly by night. And since 1926, that document has formed bodies of thought that have flowed through into regulation.

The current ICAO—the international organisation that looks after aviation—document recognises that, to use climate change terms, the science is not settled. They are not actually sure what difference a colour vision deficiency makes to an individual's ability to safely pilot an aircraft by day or by night. Despite that, regulators around the world have tended to err on the side of safety and say, 'We won't let people fly by night unless they pass one of a number of tests'. What that has meant is that for around nine per cent of the male population around the world, those who would aspire to be pilots or even air traffic controllers, are often denied that opportunity.

That changed here in Australia about 25 years ago. In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal there was a case that has become known as the Denison case where a colour-vision-deficient pilot took the regulator to the tribunal saying: 'This is unfair. I can demonstrate that I'm competent to fly.' The Commonwealth, because of the degree of interest, funded the applicant as well as the defence, through the then CAA, and so you had a test case where both parties brought in lots of experts. At the end of it, the judgement was made that in fact pilots who had a colour vision deficiency should be able to demonstrate their competence and be licensed to fly. The only condition that was put on that was that they could not captain high-capacity airline aircraft.

As a result of that, Australia is unique in the world in that we now have some 25 years of experience of people with a colour vision deficiency who have been flying, and they have been flying everything from light aircraft by day through to regional type airliners; single pilot, for example overnight freight or the Royal Flying Doctor Service, through to co-pilot roles, particularly in regional type aircraft. We also have—because a number of the principal medical officers within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have sought to facilitate people with a colour vision deficiency to fly and have implemented things like practical flight tests for people to demonstrate their competence—some people now captaining large capacity aircraft and they have been doing so quite safely for a number of years and in some cases have well over 10,000 hours of flying. That says that, despite the theory, much of which has its origins in that 1926 document, practice shows that people with a colour vision deficiency can operate aircraft safely.

There are four key areas that people raise concerns about. One is to do with the tower. If you lose your radio and there is a control tower, you have to look for the red, green or flashing lights to tell you whether you can land, take off et cetera. People are concerned that if you cannot distinguish the lights then you would not be able to land safely. Again that was probably valid in 1926, but the reality is that on the top of the approach plates that I and other pilots use when we fly is the phone number for the tower. It says, 'If you lose radio contact, phone the tower.' The headset I use, like many others, has a bluetooth connection for a phone so you can quite safely, if you need to, have a redundant system that is specified in the publications to call the tower. So I think that argument is somewhat outdated.

There is also the argument that, with the advent of EFIS screens or glass cockpits, the increased use of colour means that you must be able to distinguish the colours in order to be able to operate safely. One pilot recently underwent a test in a simulator with a CASA flying operations inspector. He specifically asked to be tested on all the night sequences information from the cockpit and he was assessed as being quite safe to operate. In my own experience of modifying aircraft and certifying them for use with night-vision goggles one of the common applications in the cockpit is to put a large green filter over the glass displays so all the colour hierarchies are essentially diminished and yet we certify the aircraft, and pilots fly quite happily by day and night with no incidents. So, whilst the colour is nice to have, clearly it is not an essential characteristic of the cockpit.

There is also concern about traffic and whether you will see the position lights on aircraft. The reality is that many aircraft now have bright white strobe lights for collision avoidance. The interesting part is that the aircraft that most these people have been able to fly over the 25 years are aircraft that do not have automated systems to support the pilot. The one type of aircraft they are not generally allowed to fly in Australia—your larger airlines—has things like white strobes; predominately flies in controlled airspace where air traffic control provides a degree of separation; and has traffic collision avoidance systems, TCASs, that give automated warnings of proximity to other aircraft. So there appears again, both in practice and just conceptually, to be a problem with the restriction that has been placed on people there.

The last area is the PAPI, the precision approach path indicator, which is a glide slope indicator that is positioned next to a runway for pilots to use at night. Because it relies on a combination of red and white lights there is a concern that certain kinds of colour-vision-deficient pilots would not be able to interpret those lights. Again, the confound for that theory is that over 25 years hundreds of pilots have flown thousands of approaches at night using PAPIs quite safely, which says that either the PAPI itself has additional cueing, such as the intensity of the lights, or, more probably, there are enough redundant cues in the surrounding environment that the pilot can land safely. That is backed up by the fact that CASA will provide an exemption if the PAPI is unserviceable: you can still fly your aircraft and land it. That says that the PAPI is a nice thing to have but it is clearly not essential for landing an aircraft.

For this minority group of pilots there has been a change in CASA's view. They have decided to review the safety of these people flying aircraft. They have written to the individual pilots and to employers saying that research, which they have not published, has shown that these pilots may be unsafe. But they have not clarified what that is. The history over the last 25 years shows that that is not the case. Previous principal medical officers in CASA have shown a willingness to support pilots. I am concerned that the attitudes of a few within the regulator may be putting at risk this group, albeit a minority group. In our democracy we look after the rights of minorities. There is an injustice being done to this group. I will be working with the government to fund either another test case or research to make sure that this group receives the justice that the last 25 years have shown that they are due.

Last edited by Sarcs; 10th Jul 2014 at 23:01. Reason: Vision splendid - fixed.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2014, 12:29
  #2016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And so Mr Black Hand or "tolakuma manki"; in whatever guise you wear this day: know this, you are wrong. The philosophy is flawed, we fought wars to protect what you would take away – simply to be right.
C'mon K, ignore Owen Meaney, he is just a bored troll. Besides its fun watching him trying to play with the big boys in the big sandpit, but in the end he always gets belted back down into the little sandpit with the preppies
004wercras is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2014, 03:56
  #2017 (permalink)  
 
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
004wercras. May I intervene to "rescue" this thread from immersion in the troll pool (406 with GPS in hand);


In the past 25 years the case for the CVD pilot has been made.


CAsA are in error attacking this proof -"WHICH IS IN". Providing further "opinion" to alter the known scientific conclusion is simply a pathetic mischief and a vexatious act. It is the act of a desperate animal in its death throes.


By the same margin of time, CAsA cannot quantify how many "tragedy's" have been prevented by their intervention with reprehensible strict liability offences and "opinions". They can highlight the known "incidents" which had tragic consequences, however, as there is no such thing as an "accident" any more, they can only claim their prosecutions or wins in the AAT are quantifiable evidence of a perverted prevention.


I'm happy to be roved wrong if anyone can quantify how many lives have been saved by CAsA since 1989. Until this proof is conclusive we have "un-affordable" and nebulous safety.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2014, 05:13
  #2018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well said Frank. A parting kick in the guts from Herr Screamer!
Jinglie is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2014, 10:50
  #2019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kharon at post #1021 of the Truss thread…

…said this (#1021):
Minuscule – in very real terms, the ATSB is an essential part of air safety much more so than the 'regulator'; but don't rely on the BRB, ask the Americans, the Brits or the Canadians how they would feel about a toothless, irrelevant Transport Safety Board. Make the ATSB independent, free of obligation and funding wrangles: Oh, and please, lend me a cannon from the lawns on parliament hill, for a short ceremony; you can watch.
And on the CVD petition sticky “K” linked to a 2010 Ben Sandilands PT article titled - Independent push for better air safety standards in Australia

Perhaps the key word in the PT article title and the “K” post is independent. Under Beaker the ATsB has brought us the Hempel non-investigation; the PelAir debacle; the ATsB arranged YMIA incident love-in event; and recently the strange tabloid style prelim report on a certain grounded ATR..aaand the list goes on and on..

Which is all evidence that the ATsB, in its current form, is disturbingly & severely lacking in any form of being a transparent & fully independent State run AAI.

004 sums up best the current conundrum of the bureau…

“…Although most attention is on CAsA and its misuse of power for decades, we cannot forget Beaker. He has managed in less than 5 years to take the once well respected and well reputed ATsB and turn it into a spineless limp wristed penny pinching accountancy firm. The quality, content and effectiveness of its investigative reports and processes are laughable and lamentable, with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe providing a higher quality and higher standard than our ATsB. Dolans experimentation with 'beyond Reason' methodology is a failure and a complete joke. Placing budget ahead of the Pel Air aircraft retrieval is outright lunacy and incompetency at the highest level, not to mention having 3 commissioners of whom none have an aviation investigative background…”

Throughout the 5 year tenure of Beaker, & his systematic dismantling of the once proud ATSB/BASI reputation, Senator Xenophon has been the one consistent, nagging voice highlighting the deficiencies of CAsA, ASA and the bureau in the administration/oversight of air safety in this country.

NX has also had a strong ally and confidante in AIPA, who undoubtedly have provided many behind closed door briefings to NX, while always contributing and appearing at all of the aviation related Senate inquiries initiated by the good Senator. AIPA’s message on the importance of maintaining a fully independent ATsB is also consistent.

Unlike many of the ASRR submissions, which largely focused their attentions on the big R regulator, AIPA‘s submission highlighted their very real concerns with the continuing demise of the ATsB.
Excerpts from the AIPA submission -197 AIPA:
The ATSB

In October 2012, AIPA made a submission to the Australian Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations (the “Pel-Air Inquiry”). The Committee’s final Report is a vital document for the Review.

However, we believe that our submission for the most part addressed a range of issues that remain directly relevant to the Review’s Terms of Reference and we strongly recommend that you read it separately from the Senate’s final report. It can be found at:
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=31a52199-58c6
-4cd8-ad9e-646f2356b23a
For the present purpose, we do not believe that we need to quote large slabs of our Pel-Air Inquiry submission. However, the following brief synopsis will not do justice to the detail of the argument in our submission nor will it establish the full context. Subject to that caveat, what we said was:
• the ATSB report on the ditching was too little, too late to improve aviation safety as a result of that event;
• the standard of the report was the antithesis of that expected from the ATSB by the broader aviation community;
• the report appeared to have been rendered of little use by the dead hand of bureaucracy, which then raised questions about why that might have been the case;
• we questioned whether an over-emphasis on the ”no blame” philosophy has overshadowed, if not obscured, the importance of the ATSB’s primary role to improve transport safety;
we then examined the seismic shift in the relationship between ATSB and CASA from the Lockhart River Coronial Inquiry and the publication of the Pel-Air report;
• the Miller Review was commissioned to redress the “serious, ongoing animosity between” CASA and the ATSB;
• Miller came from the law, which is all about allocation of blame and
punishment, to review the relationship with an organisation that eschews those very tenets;
• Miller’s recommendations were adopted by Government and the ATSB was pushed into the background;
• Miller, undoubtedly for all of the right reasons, stated:
“…Ultimately, the ATSB's contribution will be judged, not by the quality of its analysis, conclusions and safety recommendations per se, but by the influence those recommendations have on improving the aviation safety system.”
• we didn’t think it appropriate to judge ATSB against the inaction of those to whom the safety recommendations are addressed; and
the ATSB became “institutionally timid” and essentially stopped making safety recommendation of any note, but enjoyed a vastly “improved” relationship with CASA.

While clearly AIPA’s submission straddles the first and second objective of this Review, the reality is that the Senate Inquiry largely underlined that the effectiveness of the ATSB had largely been sacrificed in the interests of not upsetting CASA. Had the same Senate Committee inquired into the Lockhart River accident investigation, it is highly likely that it
would not have been the ATSB that was side-lined in the aftermath.

AIPA maintains the view that the large scale adoption of the Miller recommendations has had the effect of negatively influencing the true intentions of paragraphs 12AA(1)(b) and (c) of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSIA) by repressing the independence of
the ATSB and suppressing holistic examination of the aviation safety system.

AIPA’s submission specifically questioned whether CASA’s role in the aviation system was being adequately scrutinised, but the harsh reality is that the same question could be asked in relation to any of the agencies directly or indirectly influencing aviation safety. Current
knowledge, post the Senate Inquiry, suggests not.

AIPA believes that the ATSB has a very clear duty under the TSIA to independently and holistically examine the aviation safety system. Pandering to the ego or behaviour of any stakeholder is anathema to the principles under which the ATSB was established and AIPA strongly believes that the safety message should never be lost in the telling. We strongly support the notion of the ATSB as the watchdog of agency influence on aviation safety.

Nonetheless, AIPA recognises two important factors: first, the current generation of senior ATSB managers may find it difficult to step out of Miller’s shadow;and second, the ATSB is not and never should be a routine auditor of the aviation safety system. AIPA believes that the latter function requires a Machinery of Government change to redress a number of aviation safety governance issues. We will elaborate on that proposal later in this submission.

In regard to the appointment of the ATSB Executive, AIPA is very conscious that ‘profiling’ has its limitations and that the key to success is very much about ‘the right stuff’’ and less about career paths. We will always have a preference for operational experience in executive positions of entities that have a profound influence on aviation safety, regardless of what type of entity is involved. ‘Operational experience’ includes experience as a safety
specialist or as a regulator that can be shown to be appropriately proximate to the actual conduct of flight operations. AIPA recognises that there may be a need for appointments within the ATSB Executive for career public servants, but, subject to our ‘right stuff’ caveat, we have deep reservations about such appointments at any level above Deputy CEO (however designated).

Recommendation 3
AIPA recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development issue a directive to the ATSB clarifying that paragraphs 12AA(1)(b) and (c) of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 require holistic examination of the aviation safety system, including the regulatory framework, and that cooperation and consultation with stakeholders must
not be permitted to compromise the independence of the ATSB or the making of safety recommendations.
& from page 14 of the AIPA submission:
The widespread industry view is that ATSB has largely lost its way post-Lockhart River and post-Miller and is now subservient to CASA.As usual, the truth has now become irrelevant under the weight of perception. The reality is that someone needs to watch the watchdog and, not withstanding the narrowly focused legal review mechanisms, that role currently can fall only on the shoulders of the ATSB.

AIPA views the unseemly public battle between CASA and the ATSB over Lockhart River to be predominantly a behavioural failure of CASA senior management but, most importantly, it was a major failure on the part of the Department in supervising two critical portfolio agencies on behalf of the Minister. To be fair to the Secretary, for whom we have the greatest respect, the outcome and the perceptions generated by the Pel-Air Inquiry were undoubtedly unexpected. Nonetheless, AIPA is of the strong view that the Secretary should advise the Minister that it is proper and appropriate for the ATSB to critically examine the role of the regulator and the regulatory framework as part of its functions under the TSIA and, furthermore, advise the Minister that it is proper and appropriate for CASA to expect and accept such scrutiny.
Well Red (M&M) are you up for the challenge on briefing the miniscule on the AIPA (& some IOS) strong view(s) on the ATSB; or will you continue to deny the findings of the myriad of industry & Senate findings/recommendations. Recommendations that more than adequately prove that you have in fact a very big, out of control problem that can only end in tears, a decimated industry and a series of big smoking holes in the ground with a baying public calling for the miniscule & your (pumpkin) head???

TICK..TOCK RED!

Addendum for Jinglie benefit:



Last edited by Sarcs; 15th Jul 2014 at 12:07.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2014, 11:50
  #2020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATSB up to their neck in it.

There have been a lot of comments here about removing several layers of CASA. Also a lot of commentary that the ATSB is easily fixed, and Beaker is the fix. It goes way beyond that as demonstrated in the AAI Senate References Committee report and Hansard. Actually, Beaker may have just been a "muppet" covering the F'Ups from those below, feeling pressure to appease him - the new bean/accident investigator on the block. And to add to SARCS comment, this is from Quinn's submission quoting the Miller Review.

“Tension between safety regulators and accident investigators is not unusual – there are international examples of such tension and, in any case, some degree of constructive tension between the ATSB and CASA should be expected given their respective roles. Although they are both important contributors to Australia's aviation safety system and share the same long term goal (improving aviation safety), they have quite different powers and functions. The very nature of the role of the ATSB often places it in the position of reviewer of CASA's regulatory and other actions where there has been an accident or serious incident. There can also be tensions arising from legitimate differences of opinion. Information about what happened in an aircraft accident or incident can be fragmented, allowing for a variety of hypotheses about what actually happened. The causes contributing to an aircraft accident or incident can often be diverse, leaving ample room for debate over what actually caused it. Differing professional judgements will inevitably lead to different views, often firmly held.”
“Creative tension can be a positive force. Professional disagreement, properly expressed, can lead to better outcomes overall as each party examines the views of the other and the expertise available to each is shared, debated and evaluated. A clearer picture can emerge and a better outcome may result.”
Doesn't seemed to have happened with Pel-Air! the simple question of how a "Critical" safety issue was downgraded to "Minor"! No intelligible explanation from Beaker, and no minutes of meetings! The man in the back of the room has left to vomit!
If you look at the video of the ATSB testimony, its a very nervous crew.
Jinglie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.