Merged: Senate Inquiry
Estimates - Archerfield Airport.
Have now reviewed and copied several segments of interest from last night's evening session of Estimates...
Before I post these (for those interested) I would like to make an observation from the evenings festivities that IMO was quite striking.
Just prior to the aviation safety bureaucrats stepping up to the plate we had the crew from AMSA and I have to say the comparison was quite remarkable, I truly wish we could bottle what AMSA have got going on...
The AMSA understated, unflappable and disciplined professionalism was totally on display. It was obvious that the CEO was comfortable he was in charge of a strong, cohesive team committed to their area of remit. The stark contrast with the rabble that followed just makes you want to cry in despair...
Oh well onto Airports & Archerfield where earlier in the day the Heff asked this about the upcoming AAT hearing...
Then in the evening Senator Fawcett questioned Mr Docherty in regards to Archerfield and runway length (shortening) proposed in the airport master plan...
Here is the 1st part of the AQON from CAsA to which Senator Fawcett refers:
Okay so CAsA effectively wipe their hands of the matter..
.. as the runway length is solely a matter for the airport operator to determine and the responsibility of the PIC to comply with the restrictions that a proposed runway shortening may have in regards to aircraft performance (or in some cases useability)...
However although the good Senator mentions some light to medium weight and performance twins in his questioning he forgot to point out that CAsA (seemingly blindly) accepted the Archerfield Airport Limited opinion that the most critical aircraft for calculation was...
"..CASA advised Archerfield Airport Limited (AAL) that in their report "Archerfield Airport Planning Issues" they calculated the required minimum runway lengths correctly. The recommendations of the report found the most critical aircraft for calculation of minimum runway take-off length, being the Cessna 208B Caravan 1 Super Cargomaster, would only require a minimum 890 metres and AAL allocated a minimum of 900 metres. There was no requirement to factor in the AFM data into the determination of runway length..."
I would have thought it was in the interest of CAsA (& the Dept) if they had also consulted with the industry stakeholders at Archerfield, to whether the Cessna 208B Caravan was a true representation of the most critical aircraft currently being operated or planned to operate out of Archerfield.
But why am I not surprised that in the grand scheme of things that the operator/pilot always comes an insignificant last in consultation...
Next the mi..mi..mi..Beaker segment which was hardly worth mentioning - especially with Senator Milne trying to politicise the MH370 search..
- but we do get a firm date from Beaker for the release of the TSBC report. We also establish that, since last Estimates, there has been no 30,000ft death plunges that may have been causal to a CVD pilot...
Oh and Senator Wacka does bring up the issue of the higher incidence of ADF CTA LOSA events...
MTF...
Before I post these (for those interested) I would like to make an observation from the evenings festivities that IMO was quite striking.
Just prior to the aviation safety bureaucrats stepping up to the plate we had the crew from AMSA and I have to say the comparison was quite remarkable, I truly wish we could bottle what AMSA have got going on...
The AMSA understated, unflappable and disciplined professionalism was totally on display. It was obvious that the CEO was comfortable he was in charge of a strong, cohesive team committed to their area of remit. The stark contrast with the rabble that followed just makes you want to cry in despair...
Oh well onto Airports & Archerfield where earlier in the day the Heff asked this about the upcoming AAT hearing...
Then in the evening Senator Fawcett questioned Mr Docherty in regards to Archerfield and runway length (shortening) proposed in the airport master plan...
Here is the 1st part of the AQON from CAsA to which Senator Fawcett refers:
Answer:
An airport operator can build a runway to the length they wish and it is the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft to assess if that length, with the given environmental factors on the day of operation, is adequate for the aircraft to take off and/or land on the runway in question.
An airport operator can build a runway to the length they wish and it is the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft to assess if that length, with the given environmental factors on the day of operation, is adequate for the aircraft to take off and/or land on the runway in question.
.. as the runway length is solely a matter for the airport operator to determine and the responsibility of the PIC to comply with the restrictions that a proposed runway shortening may have in regards to aircraft performance (or in some cases useability)...However although the good Senator mentions some light to medium weight and performance twins in his questioning he forgot to point out that CAsA (seemingly blindly) accepted the Archerfield Airport Limited opinion that the most critical aircraft for calculation was...
"..CASA advised Archerfield Airport Limited (AAL) that in their report "Archerfield Airport Planning Issues" they calculated the required minimum runway lengths correctly. The recommendations of the report found the most critical aircraft for calculation of minimum runway take-off length, being the Cessna 208B Caravan 1 Super Cargomaster, would only require a minimum 890 metres and AAL allocated a minimum of 900 metres. There was no requirement to factor in the AFM data into the determination of runway length..."
I would have thought it was in the interest of CAsA (& the Dept) if they had also consulted with the industry stakeholders at Archerfield, to whether the Cessna 208B Caravan was a true representation of the most critical aircraft currently being operated or planned to operate out of Archerfield.
But why am I not surprised that in the grand scheme of things that the operator/pilot always comes an insignificant last in consultation...
Next the mi..mi..mi..Beaker segment which was hardly worth mentioning - especially with Senator Milne trying to politicise the MH370 search..
- but we do get a firm date from Beaker for the release of the TSBC report. We also establish that, since last Estimates, there has been no 30,000ft death plunges that may have been causal to a CVD pilot...Oh and Senator Wacka does bring up the issue of the higher incidence of ADF CTA LOSA events...
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 21st Oct 2014 at 02:35.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazumped – by Gad.
Sarcs – "The AMSA understated, unflappable and disciplined professionalism was totally on display. It was obvious that the CEO was comfortable he was in charge of a strong, cohesive team committed to their area of remit. The stark contrast with the rabble that followed just makes you want to cry in despair."
Poor old Beaker – Milne on a mission to get any sort of cheap, free shot at Abbott yarded the hapless Muppet. Normally I don't mind seeing Beaker roughed up – in the name of air safety – but the low blows and pure political malice of the Senator for Tasmania made me feel just a little sympathy. If that pure political malice is representative of the type of gutter politics Tassie can expect the heaven help them. It is utterly despicable to use the 'honest' search for some 200 odd souls and a lost aircraft in that manner. Does this woman kick kittens, torment dogs and throw rocks at kids on her days off, I wonder?.
Well, seems it's study of the crimes Act next; Heff seemed to be giving it some air time and some not so subtle hints about using it. Loved the bit at the end when the CASA counter lunch voucher minder is invited to "have a quiet word" with Heff after stumps.
I just wonder if Creamy's dry lettuce leaf has become a nettle (for the grasping of) and the zephyr to become a full gale force wind of change. More reading to do after first impressions – whether to take ASA, ATSB or CASA apart next is the puzzle.
Colour me spoiled for choice...
Last edited by Kharon; 21st Oct 2014 at 02:44. Reason: Alemazed and happy daze at BRB - tonight. Lampshades authorised.
Senate Estimates - ASA Chief trouble afoot?
MA - The stench of corruption emanating from the answers to the Archerfield questions is overwhelming!!! I want to know who is getting paid off and how much. Disgraceful!!
CHAIR: I now welcome the honourable David Johnston, Minister for Defence, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and Mr Mike Mrdak, long-serving Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, and officers of the department. Minister, or Mr Mrdak, would you like to make an opening statement?
Senator Johnston: Thank you. I have no opening words.
Mr Mrdak : I am happy to go straight to questions; thank you.
CHAIR: I have had some inquiries, Mr Mrdak, in recent days about the future of general aviation. I will probably be putting some questions on notice or asking them today. But just as a guide, the concern of a lot of people in general aviation—helicopter services, private light planes, et cetera—is the likes of Archerfield airport. What guarantees can we give the Australian general aviation industry that they will have airports at which they can land planes in the future, given the pressure on the land space surrounding airports by developers getting a quid by putting up high rise and aerials on top, et cetera? Do you see a risk from the power of developers cooperating with state governments to the future of general aviation operating out of the likes of Archerfield, Bankstown and other airports?
Mr Mrdak : I think some concern is warranted in relation to the development pressures around our general aviation airports and our major capital city airports in a number of our cities. Quite clearly, as state planning policies come into effect seeking to increase the density of development in our urban areas, there is pressure to build right up to the boundaries, including in some high noise areas around our airports. There is also pressure to increasingly look at high rise developments which start to impinge on the PANS-OPS and OLS services of the airports. There are two critical areas. Firstly, the Australian government is very firm in its view that these sites will be and must be retained for aviation usage as the primary purpose. Hence the master planning process for airports such as Archerfield is very much driven to making sure that sufficient aerodevelopment takes place on the site for continuation and there is no reduction of access for aviation. Secondly, as you would be aware, over the last few years under successive governments we have sought to work with the state planning agencies under a process called NASAG—National Aviation Safeguarding Advisory Group—where we have sought to get planning arrangements agreed with the states that mean we can protect the approaches to those aerodromes and we do not have development pressure which impinges on the safe operation. That process has been ongoing and it continues to be ongoing. Mr Wilson may wish to give you some more detail on the next steps on that. We remain positive that the master planning process will provide for continued access, but we remain concerned about the development policies in a number of jurisdictions which may result in increasing encroachment of development into airway services.
Mr Wilson : As Mr Mrdak rightly indicated, we have been working quite closely with our state colleagues in regard to protection of aviation facilities in Australia. It would be fair to say that there is a strong recognition within state jurisdictions of the importance of aviation facilities, but it would also be fair to say that that recognition is more focused on the major airports than the secondary airports that you indicated in terms of Bankstown, Moorabbin, Archerfield and the like. The importance of general aviation in regard to the development of the overall industry is not as well understood at a state and territory jurisdictional level. We have been working with them through the NASAG arrangements in a very cooperative approach. But, as Mr Mrdak indicated, there is continuing pressure between the balance of development in our urban areas and the requirements of the aviation industry.
CHAIR: I have a brief here on what has happened since World War II, when Commonwealth—only development was on airfields. That has given way now to a lot of private development. What generally are the lease arrangements for those private developments for the land?
Mr Wilson : We hold the lease arrangements for 21 of the airports in Australia. The ones you indicated before are ours: Moorabbin, Bankstown, Archerfield and the like. So we both regulate and are the lessee. The private sector leases that land from the Commonwealth.
CHAIR: What is the tenure on those subleases to the private developer?
Mr Wilson : It is 49 years, with an option for 50.
CHAIR: What is the protection for the aviation industry if some of those developments impinge on the safe operating capacity of an airfield? It happens by increments. Do you have the capacity to knock the building down without compensation?
Mr Mrdak : We control the development through the master plans and also the development plans. We are the building regulator on airport. In relation to developments on airport that may impinge on safety, then clearly we and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have a role. With developments off airport, we are reliant on the powers of the state and local planning authorities in relation to developments that may intrude on some of the surfaces. There are some powers that CASA has in relation to immediate safety risks of certain structures. But largely we are dependent upon the planning and development powers of the state and local governments off airport sites.
Mr Wilson : We do have additional powers that enable us to ensure that developments around the airport do not impinge on the OLS or on PANS-OPS—so that they do not impinge on the safe operation of aviation around those airports. That provides us with the capacity to restrict developments. The responsibility for undertaking the process in regard to that development sits with the individual airport operator; so they would start the process. We at the end of the day, however, hold the delegation and the decision-making in terms of a development that would impact on aviation services.
CHAIR: It is suggested here in my information that we need a full Senate inquiry into the airports, as the aviation industry is beyond tipping point. The loss of the purview of parliament—a department that acts merely as a post office—in no way is in the interests of users, and the lack of transparency in relation to the leased airports has set in train an environment conducive to corruption. So I suggest to you that I might be putting some questions on notice. I am also suggesting that perhaps we should have a briefing of this committee on issues surrounding the complexity of—
Mr Wilson : We are more than happy to run through those issues.
CHAIR: This document has some serious propositions. Obviously it is a temptation for people; it is a lot of land. As long as it is done with maintaining a viable airport, okay; but, where that becomes blurred, it becomes a danger.
Mr Mrdak : We would be happy to provide a briefing to the committee. The on airport planning is a very transparent process, through the master plan process and the building control process. But I am happy to provide further details to the committee.
CHAIR: So the building up of a floodplain at Bankstown for a development purpose without an environmental plan was okay?
Mr Mrdak : That was assessed by our building and environmental assessment officers and was found to be consistent with the floodplain management requirements that—
CHAIR: This is the first time in history I have known of where, if you build up a floodplain, you do not flood someone who would not have got flooded, because you have pushed the water further out. They did not think that?
Mr Mrdak : My advice is that it was worked through and it was found to be an acceptable development.
CHAIR: That does not really answer the question. It is a known fact that, when you put a levee bank around north Wagga, the flood that goes through Wagga is higher because it has less route to go through. Bankstown airport will be precisely the same—we have blocked some of the floodplains, so obviously someone else is going to get a bigger flood. Anyhow, we will come to that in the briefing.
Mr Mrdak : We will come to that. We are happy to provide information.
CHAIR: We will be grateful for your time. We will now go to general questions.
Senator Johnston: Thank you. I have no opening words.
Mr Mrdak : I am happy to go straight to questions; thank you.
CHAIR: I have had some inquiries, Mr Mrdak, in recent days about the future of general aviation. I will probably be putting some questions on notice or asking them today. But just as a guide, the concern of a lot of people in general aviation—helicopter services, private light planes, et cetera—is the likes of Archerfield airport. What guarantees can we give the Australian general aviation industry that they will have airports at which they can land planes in the future, given the pressure on the land space surrounding airports by developers getting a quid by putting up high rise and aerials on top, et cetera? Do you see a risk from the power of developers cooperating with state governments to the future of general aviation operating out of the likes of Archerfield, Bankstown and other airports?
Mr Mrdak : I think some concern is warranted in relation to the development pressures around our general aviation airports and our major capital city airports in a number of our cities. Quite clearly, as state planning policies come into effect seeking to increase the density of development in our urban areas, there is pressure to build right up to the boundaries, including in some high noise areas around our airports. There is also pressure to increasingly look at high rise developments which start to impinge on the PANS-OPS and OLS services of the airports. There are two critical areas. Firstly, the Australian government is very firm in its view that these sites will be and must be retained for aviation usage as the primary purpose. Hence the master planning process for airports such as Archerfield is very much driven to making sure that sufficient aerodevelopment takes place on the site for continuation and there is no reduction of access for aviation. Secondly, as you would be aware, over the last few years under successive governments we have sought to work with the state planning agencies under a process called NASAG—National Aviation Safeguarding Advisory Group—where we have sought to get planning arrangements agreed with the states that mean we can protect the approaches to those aerodromes and we do not have development pressure which impinges on the safe operation. That process has been ongoing and it continues to be ongoing. Mr Wilson may wish to give you some more detail on the next steps on that. We remain positive that the master planning process will provide for continued access, but we remain concerned about the development policies in a number of jurisdictions which may result in increasing encroachment of development into airway services.
Mr Wilson : As Mr Mrdak rightly indicated, we have been working quite closely with our state colleagues in regard to protection of aviation facilities in Australia. It would be fair to say that there is a strong recognition within state jurisdictions of the importance of aviation facilities, but it would also be fair to say that that recognition is more focused on the major airports than the secondary airports that you indicated in terms of Bankstown, Moorabbin, Archerfield and the like. The importance of general aviation in regard to the development of the overall industry is not as well understood at a state and territory jurisdictional level. We have been working with them through the NASAG arrangements in a very cooperative approach. But, as Mr Mrdak indicated, there is continuing pressure between the balance of development in our urban areas and the requirements of the aviation industry.
CHAIR: I have a brief here on what has happened since World War II, when Commonwealth—only development was on airfields. That has given way now to a lot of private development. What generally are the lease arrangements for those private developments for the land?
Mr Wilson : We hold the lease arrangements for 21 of the airports in Australia. The ones you indicated before are ours: Moorabbin, Bankstown, Archerfield and the like. So we both regulate and are the lessee. The private sector leases that land from the Commonwealth.
CHAIR: What is the tenure on those subleases to the private developer?
Mr Wilson : It is 49 years, with an option for 50.
CHAIR: What is the protection for the aviation industry if some of those developments impinge on the safe operating capacity of an airfield? It happens by increments. Do you have the capacity to knock the building down without compensation?
Mr Mrdak : We control the development through the master plans and also the development plans. We are the building regulator on airport. In relation to developments on airport that may impinge on safety, then clearly we and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have a role. With developments off airport, we are reliant on the powers of the state and local planning authorities in relation to developments that may intrude on some of the surfaces. There are some powers that CASA has in relation to immediate safety risks of certain structures. But largely we are dependent upon the planning and development powers of the state and local governments off airport sites.
Mr Wilson : We do have additional powers that enable us to ensure that developments around the airport do not impinge on the OLS or on PANS-OPS—so that they do not impinge on the safe operation of aviation around those airports. That provides us with the capacity to restrict developments. The responsibility for undertaking the process in regard to that development sits with the individual airport operator; so they would start the process. We at the end of the day, however, hold the delegation and the decision-making in terms of a development that would impact on aviation services.
CHAIR: It is suggested here in my information that we need a full Senate inquiry into the airports, as the aviation industry is beyond tipping point. The loss of the purview of parliament—a department that acts merely as a post office—in no way is in the interests of users, and the lack of transparency in relation to the leased airports has set in train an environment conducive to corruption. So I suggest to you that I might be putting some questions on notice. I am also suggesting that perhaps we should have a briefing of this committee on issues surrounding the complexity of—
Mr Wilson : We are more than happy to run through those issues.
CHAIR: This document has some serious propositions. Obviously it is a temptation for people; it is a lot of land. As long as it is done with maintaining a viable airport, okay; but, where that becomes blurred, it becomes a danger.
Mr Mrdak : We would be happy to provide a briefing to the committee. The on airport planning is a very transparent process, through the master plan process and the building control process. But I am happy to provide further details to the committee.
CHAIR: So the building up of a floodplain at Bankstown for a development purpose without an environmental plan was okay?
Mr Mrdak : That was assessed by our building and environmental assessment officers and was found to be consistent with the floodplain management requirements that—
CHAIR: This is the first time in history I have known of where, if you build up a floodplain, you do not flood someone who would not have got flooded, because you have pushed the water further out. They did not think that?
Mr Mrdak : My advice is that it was worked through and it was found to be an acceptable development.
CHAIR: That does not really answer the question. It is a known fact that, when you put a levee bank around north Wagga, the flood that goes through Wagga is higher because it has less route to go through. Bankstown airport will be precisely the same—we have blocked some of the floodplains, so obviously someone else is going to get a bigger flood. Anyhow, we will come to that in the briefing.
Mr Mrdak : We will come to that. We are happy to provide information.
CHAIR: We will be grateful for your time. We will now go to general questions.
.. and the Chair, much like a cadaver dog on the scent, will be relentless in his pursuit to hunt the stench down..
Which brings me to the ASA segment which has to be said was not one of Ms Staib's finer moments, shame really cause it started off so well in tandem with Hoody...
The dismissive body language from MS while being quizzed by Senator Gallacher is quite remarkable - as if to say that the accountability for the spending of $96 million is simply trivial - after all it is only monies gouged from airline fare paying pax and not directly attributable to the taxpayer...
But how the body language changes not long after...
One would have thought that after the questionable credit card expenses racked up by her predecessor, that MS would have been overly anal in due diligence to proactively and transparently stamping out any whiff of such behaviour from her executive or middle management team...
One wonders how Ms Staib's position could still be tenable after such an insipid performance but then again we still have Beaker in position don't we??
MTF...
Ps Usual obligatory choccy frog for Hoody..
Last edited by Sarcs; 22nd Oct 2014 at 04:25.
Dolan appeared very uncomfortable when he was referring to the Canadian TSB report. His fidgeting and his tone were very defensive. Look at the way he looks away and pauses when he tries to recall when he first saw the draft. It's strange he doesn't know exactly when he saw such an important thing.
My guess is he has a pretty good idea what will be in the final report. He must surely. Perhaps he is not that comfortable with it.
So December eh. Wonder if the end of the year is a good time to change career.
This isn't over yet. Perhaps the Senators are sick of bashing away and trying to reason people out of an untenable position they didn't ever reason themselves into. Perhaps they have a hint the Canadian report will add significant leverage and are simply biding their time.
If the decision has been to get an independent report, then you do have to wait for the report. And it is pretty easy to sit back and wait if you are confident. And pretty hard if you feel it isn't going to go your way.
My guess is he has a pretty good idea what will be in the final report. He must surely. Perhaps he is not that comfortable with it.
So December eh. Wonder if the end of the year is a good time to change career.
This isn't over yet. Perhaps the Senators are sick of bashing away and trying to reason people out of an untenable position they didn't ever reason themselves into. Perhaps they have a hint the Canadian report will add significant leverage and are simply biding their time.
If the decision has been to get an independent report, then you do have to wait for the report. And it is pretty easy to sit back and wait if you are confident. And pretty hard if you feel it isn't going to go your way.
Senate Estimates - Fort Fumble ineptitude on display.
Agree slats Beaker looked far more fidgety than usual...
Heard a rumour that not only has the bureau kept the IOS in the dark (on the progress of the TSBC report) but also the miniscule's office has only recently been updated with where it is at...
Anyway here is part 1-3 of Fort Fumble's rudderless attempt to placate the Senators with spin & bulldust that no-one any longer believes (including the man at the back of the room..)
MTF...
Ps Passing strange.. ..the Hansard from Monday is still yet to be released yet the RRAT Ag sitting (yesterday) has already been published, see here.
Pps Ok all good Hansard out now, see here.
The following was one part that some maybe missed (from 2nd vid above) but in light of the endless supply chain to Executive trough it is IMO most revealing:
If you wanted anymore a perfect example of how totally f
d up and ill-considered Part 61 is you've got it all there in black & white, just a pity it was (almost) lost in all the other shenanigans going on...
Heard a rumour that not only has the bureau kept the IOS in the dark (on the progress of the TSBC report) but also the miniscule's office has only recently been updated with where it is at...
Anyway here is part 1-3 of Fort Fumble's rudderless attempt to placate the Senators with spin & bulldust that no-one any longer believes (including the man at the back of the room..
) MTF...
Ps Passing strange..
..the Hansard from Monday is still yet to be released yet the RRAT Ag sitting (yesterday) has already been published, see here.Pps Ok all good Hansard out now, see here.
The following was one part that some maybe missed (from 2nd vid above) but in light of the endless supply chain to Executive trough it is IMO most revealing:
Senator FAWCETT: All those costs flow on to the industry. It was only a couple of years ago that a fuel excise increase was levied—can we keep the noise down, please, because the witness cannot even hear the question {DF it could be more the fact that the arrogant **** did not want to hear the question}. A fuel levy was indexed on the industry to pay for, amongst other things, increased staff at CASA. And yet, when I look at the changes in staff categories from 2010 to 2013, I see that your corporate services are now 441, which is an increase of 91, but your flying operations inspectors are down to 70, which is a decrease of 15. So you are levying industry for supposed safety outcomes, yet it is your corporate services area that is growing, not your flying operations inspectors. In net terms, have you done modelling to ascertain that you will have sufficient people to do the testing that part 61 requires, without an undue cost on industry?
Mr Farquharson : Not to my knowledge. {WTF...is this bloke for real??}
Senator FAWCETT: Is that a satisfactory condition, given that part 61 is now going to influence the operations of the entire aviation industry—to not know if you are going to have enough examiners to meet the legal requirements?
Mr Farquharson : The indications that we are seeing from the people uptaking the transition is that there will be, and we are facilitating people to move into that environment.
Senator FAWCETT: So you are hoping that there will be enough people. You have not actually done any modelling to give yourself some comfort—before designing the whole part 61—that you would have enough workforce to do this crucial function?
Mr Farquharson : Not to my knowledge. {WTF...is this bloke for real??
}Senator FAWCETT: Is that a satisfactory condition, given that part 61 is now going to influence the operations of the entire aviation industry—to not know if you are going to have enough examiners to meet the legal requirements?
Mr Farquharson : The indications that we are seeing from the people uptaking the transition is that there will be, and we are facilitating people to move into that environment.
Senator FAWCETT: So you are hoping that there will be enough people. You have not actually done any modelling to give yourself some comfort—before designing the whole part 61—that you would have enough workforce to do this crucial function?
d up and ill-considered Part 61 is you've got it all there in black & white, just a pity it was (almost) lost in all the other shenanigans going on...
Last edited by Sarcs; 22nd Oct 2014 at 05:26.
The release dates for the bad news - the Government response to the review, the announcement of the New DAS and the Canadian report into the ATSB are either Melbourne Cup Day or between Christmas and new year.
You can bank on it.
You can bank on it.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starting at the top - Airport amnesia.
The video at SARCS post 2345 caught my attention. - Seems to be a lot of selective forgetfulness when it come to airports, particularly those of the secondary variety. It's a pretty sordid little story and the whole saga would have slipped from the collective memory, to be covered in houses and shopping malls had it not been for a few good folk, some hard work, first class research, hefty donations and a lot of sacrifice. The continuing efforts of the non chem-trail Senators are to be applauded, as they 'refresh' the departmental memory of those responsible.
No one has as yet mentioned the 'redefining' of what constitutes 'air-transport'; you notice the Mrdak careful selection of 'words', for the devil is in the detail of 'his version' of the translation, he did after all redefine the meaning to exclude pretty much any class of operation bar 'heavy' RPT. The video at Sarcs post 2345 misses the very important, carefully enunciated Mrdak words, which glibly state 'his' defining parameters. I shall hunt it down in Hansard, I believe the Senators are talking about one thing not realising that a home spun redefinition of the meaning of 'air transport' has been accomplished, which renders the debate nugatory – they ain't talking about the same thing.
Then we have the CASA 'support' for the AF master plan – which, while stating nothing but the truth – carefully steps around the real issues of the spirit and intent of the lease agreement for the aerodrome. It may well be that an airport can build a runway and that the PIC is responsible for the final analysis – however; if AF reduce the runway length to say 500 meters; then clearly, no one can 'safely' use it for practical purposes; and, as the existing operations are not 'air transport' ala Mrdak, the airport become useless – welcome to Westfields.
Then there are calculations floating about the place based on certification data and performance data, which conveniently omit many of the 'peripheral' legally required performance requirements, focusing purely on the absolute minimum runway length required for a take-off roll. The safely go – or safely stop logic is erased; the notion of landing straight ahead is erased. The assumption that a FAR 23 aircraft can climb out, OEI on a warm day and not hit anything is left standing along with the notion that if, IF the aircraft can achieve some form of climb performance, that it requires no distance at all to accelerate to that speed. Bollocks..
Back of a stamp calculations – Accelerate Stop Distance (ASD) for a PA 31 at MTOW - ::1300 meters, Accelerate Go Distance (AGD) :: 1800 meters. The calculations being bandied about to support runway length reduction rely on the manufacturer AFM data which indicate that at MTOW the Chieftain can get airborne within as little as 870 meters. So our unfortunate passengers in a Chieftain with OEI are to launch off a 900 meter strip, live on their luck for the first 500 feet (10-12 miles straight ahead), pray that height can be maintained, the weather allows the aircraft to be returned to the departure airport and that the pilot can neatly place them back on the threshold and manage to stop the aircraft within the confines of an un factored, nice dry landing distance.
They know that no sane pilot or operator would allow such and operation; thus, despite the rhetoric – welcome to Westfields – because the bloody airport is, to all intent and purpose, useless, only of value to the birds, busking for chips from the shopping fraternity.
There are lots of weasel words floating about and some very selective mathematical and legal definitions being touted, but (IMO) if you want to keep the secondary airports – you'll have to fight for them. Big bucks, affordable housing and 'jobs' is a powerful argument to beat down. Can you operate from 900 meters – sure; but can you, under all conditions guarantee that safety – No, is the short answer.
Selah.
No one has as yet mentioned the 'redefining' of what constitutes 'air-transport'; you notice the Mrdak careful selection of 'words', for the devil is in the detail of 'his version' of the translation, he did after all redefine the meaning to exclude pretty much any class of operation bar 'heavy' RPT. The video at Sarcs post 2345 misses the very important, carefully enunciated Mrdak words, which glibly state 'his' defining parameters. I shall hunt it down in Hansard, I believe the Senators are talking about one thing not realising that a home spun redefinition of the meaning of 'air transport' has been accomplished, which renders the debate nugatory – they ain't talking about the same thing.
Then we have the CASA 'support' for the AF master plan – which, while stating nothing but the truth – carefully steps around the real issues of the spirit and intent of the lease agreement for the aerodrome. It may well be that an airport can build a runway and that the PIC is responsible for the final analysis – however; if AF reduce the runway length to say 500 meters; then clearly, no one can 'safely' use it for practical purposes; and, as the existing operations are not 'air transport' ala Mrdak, the airport become useless – welcome to Westfields.
Then there are calculations floating about the place based on certification data and performance data, which conveniently omit many of the 'peripheral' legally required performance requirements, focusing purely on the absolute minimum runway length required for a take-off roll. The safely go – or safely stop logic is erased; the notion of landing straight ahead is erased. The assumption that a FAR 23 aircraft can climb out, OEI on a warm day and not hit anything is left standing along with the notion that if, IF the aircraft can achieve some form of climb performance, that it requires no distance at all to accelerate to that speed. Bollocks..
Back of a stamp calculations – Accelerate Stop Distance (ASD) for a PA 31 at MTOW - ::1300 meters, Accelerate Go Distance (AGD) :: 1800 meters. The calculations being bandied about to support runway length reduction rely on the manufacturer AFM data which indicate that at MTOW the Chieftain can get airborne within as little as 870 meters. So our unfortunate passengers in a Chieftain with OEI are to launch off a 900 meter strip, live on their luck for the first 500 feet (10-12 miles straight ahead), pray that height can be maintained, the weather allows the aircraft to be returned to the departure airport and that the pilot can neatly place them back on the threshold and manage to stop the aircraft within the confines of an un factored, nice dry landing distance.
They know that no sane pilot or operator would allow such and operation; thus, despite the rhetoric – welcome to Westfields – because the bloody airport is, to all intent and purpose, useless, only of value to the birds, busking for chips from the shopping fraternity.
There are lots of weasel words floating about and some very selective mathematical and legal definitions being touted, but (IMO) if you want to keep the secondary airports – you'll have to fight for them. Big bucks, affordable housing and 'jobs' is a powerful argument to beat down. Can you operate from 900 meters – sure; but can you, under all conditions guarantee that safety – No, is the short answer.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Oct 2014 at 20:39. Reason: Pricing earth moving equipment. One mans flood is anothers rice paddy.
This is where I fell off my chair laughing:
Of course CASA would issue staff with credit cards that have the PayWave function enabled, and of course CASA staff would simply wave their wallets in front of the sensor, knowing that only their personal credit card and not the CASA credit card would respond.
It all makes perfect sense.
Meanwhile, the Corporate Services division increases by 91 to 441, while FOI numbers drop from 15 to 70.
A stroke of genius!
Fewer FOIs will mean fewer CASA credit cards in carelessly waved wallets. More Corporate Services staff will be able to chase up and arrange repayment of all those grocery and fuel bills 'accidentally' paid on the CASA credit card.
441 people in Corporate Services? That's gotta be a joke.
Mr Jordan [CASA's Chief Financial Officer]: [W]hat typically happens, with new technology, with credit cards—if you have heard of payWave, which is where people swipe the credit card at the supermarket—we have found, is that in a number of cases people have put their wallet up to the machine to swipe and, rather than using their own personal credit card, it has inadvertently used the CASA credit card.
It all makes perfect sense.
Meanwhile, the Corporate Services division increases by 91 to 441, while FOI numbers drop from 15 to 70.
A stroke of genius!
Fewer FOIs will mean fewer CASA credit cards in carelessly waved wallets. More Corporate Services staff will be able to chase up and arrange repayment of all those grocery and fuel bills 'accidentally' paid on the CASA credit card.
441 people in Corporate Services? That's gotta be a joke.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the great 'credit card' scam being repeated, in a new guise ? – wasn't' there a great to-do about CASA cards being used to pay 'recurrent' flight training – two hours paid for and only one flown and a couple of collective junkets for the 'lads'. Thought the great credit card rort was stopped years ago. All transparent and above board now -........
Life at the trough eh – Bill Heffernan and Greg Sterle seem to be onto it, Crimes Act and all; but it pales into insignificance against Ms. Staibs big 97 million whoopsee, which is apparently – just tea money, from the petty cash and don't signify in the grand scheme.
Amusing – if expensive entertainment.
Edit – just picked up the TB quip – re chemtrails. The new, Tasmanian version 'Chemilnecal Trails, so much beloved of the green, loony, loopy left make it to the Senate in parliament – Oh joy.
...Life at the trough eh – Bill Heffernan and Greg Sterle seem to be onto it, Crimes Act and all; but it pales into insignificance against Ms. Staibs big 97 million whoopsee, which is apparently – just tea money, from the petty cash and don't signify in the grand scheme.
Amusing – if expensive entertainment.
Edit – just picked up the TB quip – re chemtrails. The new, Tasmanian version 'Chemilnecal Trails, so much beloved of the green, loony, loopy left make it to the Senate in parliament – Oh joy.
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Oct 2014 at 21:43. Reason: Add a bit more tongue in cheek..
Senator Conroy RTR questions on Part 21, 61.
You will remember that early in the day's proceedings that Sen Conroy was waiting for some answers to be forth coming from the Dept under standing order..
...well for those interested here was the eventual answer given...
Okay back to the main game...where were we?? Oh yes credit card fraud and ASA obfuscating the parliamentary public works committee...
MTF...
26 Estimates
At the end of paragraph (4), add:
If a senator has further explanations to seek, items of expenditure shall not be closed for examination unless the senator has agreed to submit written questions or the committee has agreed to schedule additional hearings for that purpose.
(Agreed to 25 June 2014.)
At the end of paragraph (4), add:
If a senator has further explanations to seek, items of expenditure shall not be closed for examination unless the senator has agreed to submit written questions or the committee has agreed to schedule additional hearings for that purpose.
(Agreed to 25 June 2014.)
Mr Mrdak: If I can just provide one answer to a question raised by Senator Conroy this morning that he was anxious to get an answer on?
ACTING CHAIR: Yes.
Mr Mrdak: Mr Wilson has an answer to that, which should not delay the committee too long from afternoon tea.
Mr Wilson: In regard to the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 21), the countries that it applies to are Brazil, China, Republic of Korea, Singapore and the United States. In regard to Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing and Other Matters), which is what we believe you were discussing this morning, what it does is it makes a number of amendments to changes that have measurable cost impacts on the industry. These include removing the requirement for a student pilot licence and replacing it with provisions that achieve the same safety outcomes consistent with ICAO standards and recommended practices, and streamlines and simplifies the flight review and proficiency check provisions without diminishing safety outcomes.
Senator CONROY:I will not torture you any further by asking you any more detailed questions, because I appreciate the work you have done in chasing this up.
Mr Wilson: The detailed questions would be questions to CASA.
Senator CONROY:As I said, I will not torture you further. Thank you for that.
ACTING CHAIR: Yes.
Mr Mrdak: Mr Wilson has an answer to that, which should not delay the committee too long from afternoon tea.
Mr Wilson: In regard to the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 21), the countries that it applies to are Brazil, China, Republic of Korea, Singapore and the United States. In regard to Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing and Other Matters), which is what we believe you were discussing this morning, what it does is it makes a number of amendments to changes that have measurable cost impacts on the industry. These include removing the requirement for a student pilot licence and replacing it with provisions that achieve the same safety outcomes consistent with ICAO standards and recommended practices, and streamlines and simplifies the flight review and proficiency check provisions without diminishing safety outcomes.
Senator CONROY:I will not torture you any further by asking you any more detailed questions, because I appreciate the work you have done in chasing this up.
Mr Wilson: The detailed questions would be questions to CASA.
Senator CONROY:As I said, I will not torture you further. Thank you for that.
MTF...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Bill, even worse.
Just chatting to someone who for three years has been trying to get a CAsA "legislative Instrument", whatever that is? only to be told CAsA don't have anyone qualified to issue it!!...ie we took your money under false pretenses!!
If anyone is under any allusion that Part 61 can work in its present form is deluding themselves.
$90 Million robbed from the Industry, 90 odd new managers....minus 15 operational staff!!
Just chatting to someone who for three years has been trying to get a CAsA "legislative Instrument", whatever that is? only to be told CAsA don't have anyone qualified to issue it!!...ie we took your money under false pretenses!!
If anyone is under any allusion that Part 61 can work in its present form is deluding themselves.
$90 Million robbed from the Industry, 90 odd new managers....minus 15 operational staff!!
Planetalking on Estimates revelation i.e. ASA credit card fraud.
AirServices CEO queried over knowledge of Crimes Act
Ben Sandilands | Oct 23, 2014 3:46PM | EMAIL | PRINT
Early this week during Senate Estimates hearings the CEO of AirServices Australia, Margaret Staib, was questioned as to why she didn’t refer a manager who stole up to $20,000 from the Commonwealth to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
This is what is reported in Hansard, but was apparently too hot for the general media to handle.
If that Hansard transcript reads as incredible, given the pursuit of disgraced Labor figure Craig Thomson, who spend $28,449 on prostitutes, porn, and upper end ice creams taken from union funds, or ex House of Reps Speaker, Peter Slipper, who was found guilty of misusing $1194 worth of Commonwealth Cabcharge dockets, then enjoy the following two You Tubes.
They capture the entire live videocast of the hearings last Monday, capturing Ms Staibs performance as well as other matters, starting with this video, and finishing with the sequel here.
There are some reasonable points of fairness and competency in public administration that arise from that Estimates hearing.
Was Ms Staib ignorant of her obligations under the Crimes Act, or did she knowingly choose to ignore them? The hearing didn’t clear up that question.
Should public servants in general feel they are exempt from the application of the criminal law of Australia, without specifically engaging the question as to what Ms Staib thinks or does, since this is an issue about how our public service should be run, not what the head of AirServices might believe to be the case or the correct course of action?
Ms Staib has a difficult job to do, and deserves respect for trying to do it to the best of her ability. But whether her attitudes to or knowledge of the law, and the Crimes Act in particular, are up to the required standard is another matter.
The worst thing that can happen to Government is to become distrusted or despised by ordinary people, and to a large extent, how well or poorly a Government may come to be perceived, such perceptions will be significantly formed by the culture and competency of its public administration.
In might be said, in the most general of contexts, that a public service culture that thinks it is immune from rthe criminal law of Australia is a culture than can destroy respect for Government. Whoever allegedly stole up to $20,000 from the vital government owned and controlled entity that is AirServices Australia needs to be identified and prosecuted, and if necessary punished in addition to having the value of any such proceeds of crime recovered from their assets.
Ben Sandilands | Oct 23, 2014 3:46PM | EMAIL | PRINT
Early this week during Senate Estimates hearings the CEO of AirServices Australia, Margaret Staib, was questioned as to why she didn’t refer a manager who stole up to $20,000 from the Commonwealth to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
This is what is reported in Hansard, but was apparently too hot for the general media to handle.
Senator STERLE: Ms Staib, you indicated that an employee was dismissed for credit-card misuse in the last few months. Could you tell us the employee’s level and how much was involved?
Ms Staib : There was an employee dismissed in the last couple of months for credit-card abuse. The level of that person was middle management, but I do not have the figure at hand for the amount involved.
Senator STERLE: It is a pretty serious issue, because they were dismissed. Does anyone else have the amount? Gentlemen, you have that blank look on your faces—it is not so hard. How many people get dismissed the credit-card misuse? Someone must have the figure. I do not believe that you do not have it.
CHAIR: While you are thinking about that, given that the Crimes Act has a misprision felony, has it been reported to the police?
Ms Staib : This incident had not been reported to the police.
CHAIR: Then whoever who knew about it but did not report it is a criminal under the Crimes Act. Do you understand the Crimes Act and a misprision felony? I am putting you on notice.
Ms Staib : I am sorry but I do not have the figure at hand. I simply cannot recall it.
Senator STERLE: Chair, through you, the next time they come to estimates, can they do their homework?
Ms Staib : It is in the order of about 10,000 to 20,000 dollars and it was around travel, if my memory serves me correctly.
Senator STERLE: Ms Staib, for future estimates, if you can just come out with it, rather than saying, ‘We don’t have a clue.’ It would make life a lot easier.
Senator WILLIAMS: Will you be doing a referral to the DPP on this issue? Surely, embezzlement—or whatever you want to call it—of 10 to 20 thousand dollars should face criminal charges.
Ms Staib : This matter will not be referred, but on another matter—
Senator WILLIAMS: Why?
Ms Staib : as soon as we discovered that issue, we referred it directly to the Australian Federal Police. In fact, that matter is before the courts as we speak.
Senator WILLIAMS: This person was sacked for putting items on a credit card that they were not allowed and it involved $10,000 to $20,000, but it does not get referred to the DPP. Why not?
Ms Staib : We have not done that, Senator.
Senator WILLIAMS: You say the matter will not be referred to the DPP. I am asking you: why not? I strike this all the time with ASIC and financial planners who forge things. They do such white collar crime and walk away scot-free. It is totally unacceptable. Will you refer this to the DPP, please?
Ms Staib : I will have a look at that.
CHAIR: Can I carefully remind you of the Crimes Act and obligation. Not if you are sure but if you have ‘reasonable knowledge’ of an act like fraud, you yourself become a felon under the Crimes Act if you do not report it.
The chair was Senator Bill Heffernan, coalition, NSW, Glenn Sterle is a Labor Senator from, Western Australia and John Williams is a coalition Senator from NSW.Ms Staib : There was an employee dismissed in the last couple of months for credit-card abuse. The level of that person was middle management, but I do not have the figure at hand for the amount involved.
Senator STERLE: It is a pretty serious issue, because they were dismissed. Does anyone else have the amount? Gentlemen, you have that blank look on your faces—it is not so hard. How many people get dismissed the credit-card misuse? Someone must have the figure. I do not believe that you do not have it.
CHAIR: While you are thinking about that, given that the Crimes Act has a misprision felony, has it been reported to the police?
Ms Staib : This incident had not been reported to the police.
CHAIR: Then whoever who knew about it but did not report it is a criminal under the Crimes Act. Do you understand the Crimes Act and a misprision felony? I am putting you on notice.
Ms Staib : I am sorry but I do not have the figure at hand. I simply cannot recall it.
Senator STERLE: Chair, through you, the next time they come to estimates, can they do their homework?
Ms Staib : It is in the order of about 10,000 to 20,000 dollars and it was around travel, if my memory serves me correctly.
Senator STERLE: Ms Staib, for future estimates, if you can just come out with it, rather than saying, ‘We don’t have a clue.’ It would make life a lot easier.
Senator WILLIAMS: Will you be doing a referral to the DPP on this issue? Surely, embezzlement—or whatever you want to call it—of 10 to 20 thousand dollars should face criminal charges.
Ms Staib : This matter will not be referred, but on another matter—
Senator WILLIAMS: Why?
Ms Staib : as soon as we discovered that issue, we referred it directly to the Australian Federal Police. In fact, that matter is before the courts as we speak.
Senator WILLIAMS: This person was sacked for putting items on a credit card that they were not allowed and it involved $10,000 to $20,000, but it does not get referred to the DPP. Why not?
Ms Staib : We have not done that, Senator.
Senator WILLIAMS: You say the matter will not be referred to the DPP. I am asking you: why not? I strike this all the time with ASIC and financial planners who forge things. They do such white collar crime and walk away scot-free. It is totally unacceptable. Will you refer this to the DPP, please?
Ms Staib : I will have a look at that.
CHAIR: Can I carefully remind you of the Crimes Act and obligation. Not if you are sure but if you have ‘reasonable knowledge’ of an act like fraud, you yourself become a felon under the Crimes Act if you do not report it.
If that Hansard transcript reads as incredible, given the pursuit of disgraced Labor figure Craig Thomson, who spend $28,449 on prostitutes, porn, and upper end ice creams taken from union funds, or ex House of Reps Speaker, Peter Slipper, who was found guilty of misusing $1194 worth of Commonwealth Cabcharge dockets, then enjoy the following two You Tubes.
They capture the entire live videocast of the hearings last Monday, capturing Ms Staibs performance as well as other matters, starting with this video, and finishing with the sequel here.
There are some reasonable points of fairness and competency in public administration that arise from that Estimates hearing.
Was Ms Staib ignorant of her obligations under the Crimes Act, or did she knowingly choose to ignore them? The hearing didn’t clear up that question.
Should public servants in general feel they are exempt from the application of the criminal law of Australia, without specifically engaging the question as to what Ms Staib thinks or does, since this is an issue about how our public service should be run, not what the head of AirServices might believe to be the case or the correct course of action?
Ms Staib has a difficult job to do, and deserves respect for trying to do it to the best of her ability. But whether her attitudes to or knowledge of the law, and the Crimes Act in particular, are up to the required standard is another matter.
The worst thing that can happen to Government is to become distrusted or despised by ordinary people, and to a large extent, how well or poorly a Government may come to be perceived, such perceptions will be significantly formed by the culture and competency of its public administration.
In might be said, in the most general of contexts, that a public service culture that thinks it is immune from rthe criminal law of Australia is a culture than can destroy respect for Government. Whoever allegedly stole up to $20,000 from the vital government owned and controlled entity that is AirServices Australia needs to be identified and prosecuted, and if necessary punished in addition to having the value of any such proceeds of crime recovered from their assets.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In might be said, in the most general of contexts, that a public service culture that thinks it is immune from rthe criminal law of Australia is a culture than can destroy respect for Government."
Hate to point this out Sarc's, CAsA KNOWS it is immune from the criminal law of Australia.
That has has been demonstrated so many times, John Quadrio comes to mind.
An ordinary citizen, just doing his job to the best of his ability, safely, and as far as anyone in this screwed up system we call aviation oversight (dependent on the FOI of the day), compliant with the law, when suddenly a capricious, malicious, regulator turns up, manufactures evidence, intimidates witnesses and when the proper authority declines to prosecute, takes it upon itself to destroy this citizen, his dreams, his plans his financial wellbeing and his health, because they can never be wrong.
Unmitigated bastardization and a shame on our government.
Hate to point this out Sarc's, CAsA KNOWS it is immune from the criminal law of Australia.
That has has been demonstrated so many times, John Quadrio comes to mind.
An ordinary citizen, just doing his job to the best of his ability, safely, and as far as anyone in this screwed up system we call aviation oversight (dependent on the FOI of the day), compliant with the law, when suddenly a capricious, malicious, regulator turns up, manufactures evidence, intimidates witnesses and when the proper authority declines to prosecute, takes it upon itself to destroy this citizen, his dreams, his plans his financial wellbeing and his health, because they can never be wrong.
Unmitigated bastardization and a shame on our government.
Last edited by thorn bird; 23rd Oct 2014 at 09:32.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill's Crimes Act
After Sarc's hint I went reading. I found this interesting:
As Kharon would say: passing strange that little interchange.
Stay Alive,
w......
Posted October 23, 2014 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
Do we think the Heff was referring to s6 of the Crimes Act 1914:
“6 Accessory after the fact
Any person who receives or assists another person, who is, to his or her knowledge, guilty of any offence against a law of the Commonwealth, in order to enable him or her to escape punishment or to dispose of the proceeds of the offence shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.”
Unsurprisingly, the Crimes Act 1914 does not mention “misprision (of)felony”. According to John Menadue The Revival of Misprision of Felony. Guest blogger: Kieran Tapsell | Pearls and Irritations
“The crime, according to Lord Denning in the 1962 House of Lords case, Sykes v The Director of Public Prosecutions, was more than 700 years old. It is so old that the word “misprision”, meaning “concealment” has disappeared from everyday use.
…
Misprision of felony was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1967, and all Australian States followed suit. New South Wales abolished it in 1990, and replaced it with a statutory form in S.316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), making it an offence not to report a “serious” crime (one with a penalty of 5 years or more in prison) unless there was a reasonable excuse. The other States replaced it with a provision that made the concealment of a crime an offence only if the concealment was in return for some gain.”
Unfortunately for the Heff, the Criminal Code Act 1995 also fails to mention “misprision of felony” and only mentions “accessory after the fact” in the context of s6 of the Crimes Act 1914.
Perhaps Margie needed to say that there are many issues under corporate codes of conduct on integrity issues that will get you fired, but that the context of the breaches may be such that there is no certainty of successful prosecution for fraud.
Yet again, not enough information prior to sending out the lynch mob for mine.
Posted October 23, 2014 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
Do we think the Heff was referring to s6 of the Crimes Act 1914:
“6 Accessory after the fact
Any person who receives or assists another person, who is, to his or her knowledge, guilty of any offence against a law of the Commonwealth, in order to enable him or her to escape punishment or to dispose of the proceeds of the offence shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.”
Unsurprisingly, the Crimes Act 1914 does not mention “misprision (of)felony”. According to John Menadue The Revival of Misprision of Felony. Guest blogger: Kieran Tapsell | Pearls and Irritations
“The crime, according to Lord Denning in the 1962 House of Lords case, Sykes v The Director of Public Prosecutions, was more than 700 years old. It is so old that the word “misprision”, meaning “concealment” has disappeared from everyday use.
…
Misprision of felony was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1967, and all Australian States followed suit. New South Wales abolished it in 1990, and replaced it with a statutory form in S.316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), making it an offence not to report a “serious” crime (one with a penalty of 5 years or more in prison) unless there was a reasonable excuse. The other States replaced it with a provision that made the concealment of a crime an offence only if the concealment was in return for some gain.”
Unfortunately for the Heff, the Criminal Code Act 1995 also fails to mention “misprision of felony” and only mentions “accessory after the fact” in the context of s6 of the Crimes Act 1914.
Perhaps Margie needed to say that there are many issues under corporate codes of conduct on integrity issues that will get you fired, but that the context of the breaches may be such that there is no certainty of successful prosecution for fraud.
Yet again, not enough information prior to sending out the lynch mob for mine.
Stay Alive,
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of Oversights, aberrations and bullets.
Good on Alex Gallacher, foxed MM out of his hole, even if the smug retort was "not me – I've got top cover – Staib is on her Pat Malone, so there" (smirk).
Then; after the Gallacher jabs, but before the sweaty top lip of Staib is mopped dry – Sterle throws in a credit card right cross:- of course collective amnesia sets in; then coyly, like a Victorian virgin, daringly uncovering her ankle; the mighty intellect of Staib fires up and a dim, vague, small recollection creeps into the forebrain. What a load of Bollocks; unless it's an almost daily occurrence – sacking one of gods chosen for ripping off industry funds – I think the whole department would know who, when, where and how much was 'misused' and in which cathouse the money was spent.
IMO a decent manager would go for a very public prosecution, just to stop the rest of the troops thinking they could get away with similar, set the tone by making an example. But the witless Staib can only pray – "if my memory serves me correctly". Bollocks. I'm more offended by the arrogant assumption that everyone is dumb enough to swallow that crap and bad play acting than the loss of AUD$20, 000; or that we are expected to believe it was an isolated event. While I'm at it – (steam on) can someone please teach her to read out-loud from a script; it is after all, a basic skill learned at the teat and a must for anyone who presumes to do a lot of 'speechifying'. (Steam off).
Mind you, when your'e busy gouging AUD $96.3 MILLIONS – out of the travelling public – a $20,000 oversight may well be – insignificant.
CHAIR:"Did someone get the bullet?" Is a bloody good question and places Staib in the same group as Dolan. If this committee was to get any more angry, they could, quite rightfully be howling for a minimum of two resignations, if not three from this tawdry passage of play.
4 Dogs – nice catch; it is indeed an intriguing notion and the "W" quote you provided has been at the core of a semi-furious, unresolved discussion at the BRB.
One thing the BRB never disagreed on was that whatever happens – will be behind closed doors, it will be swift, ruthless and never exposed to public view. This committee have good lines of contact and are trusted. There is little disagreement that if they do need additional 'information', it will be provided. Plenty of it available.
We are becoming a tribe which seems to accept accident investigation reports which are "aberrations" and $96, 000,000 "oversights" as the norm. Perhaps it's time we asked the same question as Heff did, with a rider – Did someone get the bullet? – If not why not??
Second the motion for Hood's choccy frog – but, only one though, the little blighter is getting addicted and using the wrappers for 'bling'. Which, of it's self, is no bad thing, however we must control the excesses of our public officials....
Toot toot.
4D – the infamous "passing strange" comment came from one of McComic's more disgusting rants during the Pel-Air fiasco when he attempted to denigrate and belittle one of the witnesses; went down like a well trimmed manhole cover – but delighted me; so, I 'wodgered' it......
Mr Mrdak : No. The governance of the organisation rests with the board and the CEO. They are accountable to the minister.
Senator GALLACHER: So where do they get their money?
Mr Mrdak : They are funded from industry charges.
Senator GALLACHER: Which are passed on to the travelling public as airfares.
Mr Mrdak : That is correct. The organisation is industry funded.
Senator GALLACHER: So it is a government business enterprise which does not know the rules in accordance with the public works committee, which is the longest-standing committee of the federal parliament. It has nothing to do with you. Is that what you are telling me?
Mr Mrdak : The chief executive has outlined to you the way in which this has been identified and the rectification steps taken. I do not think I can add anything further to that.
Ms Staib : Through the pricing arrangements there is—through the ACCC—but we do not have to seek approval of the Department of Finance, because it is all revenue derived from airline charges. It is not a government appropriation. (my bold)
Senator GALLACHER: So where do they get their money?
Mr Mrdak : They are funded from industry charges.
Senator GALLACHER: Which are passed on to the travelling public as airfares.
Mr Mrdak : That is correct. The organisation is industry funded.
Senator GALLACHER: So it is a government business enterprise which does not know the rules in accordance with the public works committee, which is the longest-standing committee of the federal parliament. It has nothing to do with you. Is that what you are telling me?
Mr Mrdak : The chief executive has outlined to you the way in which this has been identified and the rectification steps taken. I do not think I can add anything further to that.
Ms Staib : Through the pricing arrangements there is—through the ACCC—but we do not have to seek approval of the Department of Finance, because it is all revenue derived from airline charges. It is not a government appropriation. (my bold)
IMO a decent manager would go for a very public prosecution, just to stop the rest of the troops thinking they could get away with similar, set the tone by making an example. But the witless Staib can only pray – "if my memory serves me correctly". Bollocks. I'm more offended by the arrogant assumption that everyone is dumb enough to swallow that crap and bad play acting than the loss of AUD$20, 000; or that we are expected to believe it was an isolated event. While I'm at it – (steam on) can someone please teach her to read out-loud from a script; it is after all, a basic skill learned at the teat and a must for anyone who presumes to do a lot of 'speechifying'. (Steam off).
Sterle : It is a pretty serious issue, because they were dismissed. Does anyone else have the amount? Gentlemen, you have that blank look on your faces—it is not so hard. How many people get dismissed the credit-card misuse? Someone must have the figure. I do not believe that you do not have it.
Ms Staib : I am sorry but I do not have the figure at hand. I simply cannot recall it.
Ms Staib : I am sorry but I do not have the figure at hand. I simply cannot recall it.
CHAIR: Did the person who defrauded with the credit card make good the fraud amount? Or did you just say, 'You're sacked. See you later'?
Ms Staib : He has left the organisation. I will have to check whether we have pursued the repayment of the money.
CHAIR: Unbelievable.
Senator STERLE: On that, Chair, perhaps we could let Ms Staib know that at the next round of Senate estimates I want her to come prepared with all the information on the credit card misuse, and with any other examples of credit card misuse, travel misuse or anything that has been in the structure of Airservices Australia in the last three to five years, so we will not have play charades.
CHAIR: I will be consulting with the secretary, because now I know about it, and under the Crimes Act I am going to act, with the assistance of the secretary. Thank you very much. I will now call the ATSB. (My bold)
Ms Staib : He has left the organisation. I will have to check whether we have pursued the repayment of the money.
CHAIR: Unbelievable.
Senator STERLE: On that, Chair, perhaps we could let Ms Staib know that at the next round of Senate estimates I want her to come prepared with all the information on the credit card misuse, and with any other examples of credit card misuse, travel misuse or anything that has been in the structure of Airservices Australia in the last three to five years, so we will not have play charades.
CHAIR: I will be consulting with the secretary, because now I know about it, and under the Crimes Act I am going to act, with the assistance of the secretary. Thank you very much. I will now call the ATSB. (My bold)
4 Dogs – nice catch; it is indeed an intriguing notion and the "W" quote you provided has been at the core of a semi-furious, unresolved discussion at the BRB.
Yet again, not enough information prior to sending out the lynch mob for mine.
Sarcs –"One wonders how Ms Staib's position could still be tenable after such an insipid performance; but, then again, we still have Beaker in position don't we??"
Second the motion for Hood's choccy frog – but, only one though, the little blighter is getting addicted and using the wrappers for 'bling'. Which, of it's self, is no bad thing, however we must control the excesses of our public officials....
Toot toot.
4D – the infamous "passing strange" comment came from one of McComic's more disgusting rants during the Pel-Air fiasco when he attempted to denigrate and belittle one of the witnesses; went down like a well trimmed manhole cover – but delighted me; so, I 'wodgered' it......
Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Oct 2014 at 21:06. Reason: So many choices; so little time - great, ain't it?
Why was Ms Staib wearing wings on her clothing? Is that part of the Airservices uniform?
I was also interested in Sen. Fawcett's questions on the RK NDB approach and why it can't be performed when the Tower is operating. It really is Alice in Wonderland if it is unsafe to do an NDB at RK with the Tower because the procedure goes OCTA but perfectly safe to do an NDB at SU where the procedure goes OCTA with the Tower open.
At least I now know why they are putting in an RFF station at Ballina! Finally there is some recognition that the most likely place for a Cat 1 accident will have the rescue services on the spot. I think Sen Serle's head will explode if he witnesses another performance like that one.
I was also interested in Sen. Fawcett's questions on the RK NDB approach and why it can't be performed when the Tower is operating. It really is Alice in Wonderland if it is unsafe to do an NDB at RK with the Tower because the procedure goes OCTA but perfectly safe to do an NDB at SU where the procedure goes OCTA with the Tower open.
At least I now know why they are putting in an RFF station at Ballina! Finally there is some recognition that the most likely place for a Cat 1 accident will have the rescue services on the spot. I think Sen Serle's head will explode if he witnesses another performance like that one.
Just so there's no room for confusion, please note that CASA and ATSB have effectively told the Senate Committee that it can go and get f*cked.
CASA and ATSB have done that because they know they have the blessing of the Secretary and Minister, and they know Laborial Senate Committee members won't put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their Committee mouth is.
Is there anyone still confused, or hoping against hope all the theatrics at Senate Committee or Estimates hearings are anything other than that: theatrics?
I'm happy to walk you through the relevant concepts and facts as often as is necessary.
CASA and ATSB have done that because they know they have the blessing of the Secretary and Minister, and they know Laborial Senate Committee members won't put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their Committee mouth is.
Is there anyone still confused, or hoping against hope all the theatrics at Senate Committee or Estimates hearings are anything other than that: theatrics?
I'm happy to walk you through the relevant concepts and facts as often as is necessary.