Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Creampuff:
Yes, you are right. The great Australian public either don't know about air safety or don't care or both. Why should they?
However cast your mind back to about 1950 or before.
Air travel was regarded and an expensive and dangerous exercise. The industry spent a great deal of time and money to prove to the average punter that it was safe and no more dangerous than taking a train. That is the legacy we have now.
The problem however is that if this public confidence is shaken - by the proverbial Three smoking holes, public attitude will harden just as it has before - and Australian air travel will then be regarded as "too dangerous Mate", and if its Qantas that is involved it will be the end for them.
This is the "freeze, unfreeze and refreeze" model of public attitude response to events.
It’s all cyber-chip wrapping by now.
However cast your mind back to about 1950 or before.
Air travel was regarded and an expensive and dangerous exercise. The industry spent a great deal of time and money to prove to the average punter that it was safe and no more dangerous than taking a train. That is the legacy we have now.
The problem however is that if this public confidence is shaken - by the proverbial Three smoking holes, public attitude will harden just as it has before - and Australian air travel will then be regarded as "too dangerous Mate", and if its Qantas that is involved it will be the end for them.
This is the "freeze, unfreeze and refreeze" model of public attitude response to events.
Last edited by Sunfish; 26th May 2013 at 22:46.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish correctly notes in post 1901 <http://www.pprune.org/7863539-post1901.html> that
The reason, is simply, ignorance.
Due to the great work of many 40, 50, and 60 years ago, aviation was made safe. It has been so safe for so long, that people under fifty today don't know that it is inherently dangerous to fly at 800kph up where you can't breathe and would freeze to death in a minute or two. They see catching a plane as little different to catching a train.
The issues are simply not on their radar.
In the club that I now work at, when the “Air Accident Investigation” programs come on TV, it is mostly the older men who want to watch it, and ask me to put it on, or if already on, turn up the volume. If the TV just happens to be on the channel, when these programs come on, if no over fifty patrons are present, the under fifty people almost always ask me to change the channel, to virtually anything else, and have a tendency to spit the dummy if I don't.
The same attitude applies to this Senate Inquiry and the report.
Like all here, I downloaded it and read it front to back as soon as I could. Over the weekend, whilst working at the club, I mentioned it to, and discussed it with some of the older people. A few old blokes said they wanted to read it. When I told them it was available on line a few asked for the link, so I went into the office during lunch, logged on, cut and pasted the links to a word doc, made the print size 20, and printed a few out. I distributed six to the “interested” public, out of approximately, say 200 people, over the two days. So, on this sample, a 3 percent “interested” rate.
There is your proof Sunfish.
The great Australian public either don't know about air safety or don't care or both.
Due to the great work of many 40, 50, and 60 years ago, aviation was made safe. It has been so safe for so long, that people under fifty today don't know that it is inherently dangerous to fly at 800kph up where you can't breathe and would freeze to death in a minute or two. They see catching a plane as little different to catching a train.
The issues are simply not on their radar.
In the club that I now work at, when the “Air Accident Investigation” programs come on TV, it is mostly the older men who want to watch it, and ask me to put it on, or if already on, turn up the volume. If the TV just happens to be on the channel, when these programs come on, if no over fifty patrons are present, the under fifty people almost always ask me to change the channel, to virtually anything else, and have a tendency to spit the dummy if I don't.
The same attitude applies to this Senate Inquiry and the report.
Like all here, I downloaded it and read it front to back as soon as I could. Over the weekend, whilst working at the club, I mentioned it to, and discussed it with some of the older people. A few old blokes said they wanted to read it. When I told them it was available on line a few asked for the link, so I went into the office during lunch, logged on, cut and pasted the links to a word doc, made the print size 20, and printed a few out. I distributed six to the “interested” public, out of approximately, say 200 people, over the two days. So, on this sample, a 3 percent “interested” rate.
There is your proof Sunfish.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSB vs ATSBeaker
The TSB Canada have it finally worked out after years of evolution. There was a good paper written and then presented in 2012 by Michael Cunningham titled "Evolution of Aviation Safety, From Reactive to Predictive". Also of interest is that Mr Cunningham actually understands the 'trade' so to speak (interesting to compare his experience, aviation knowledge and background to that nupty Beaker). He goes on to discuss James Reasons "Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents". Funny that, no mention of "Beyond Reason" or any other untried, untested methodology formulated by bureaucrats and spin doctors.
Similar methodology is accepted and promulgated by the NTSB as well as the Singapore AAIB. So do we really need anymore evidence than this to prove that our ATSBeaker has failed, dismally under the watchful eye of the present three non qualified commissioners, as delicately put by the Senators in their report .
The past 5 years of mi mi mi has hopefully come to an end.
Beaker, don't slam the door on your way out!
Similar methodology is accepted and promulgated by the NTSB as well as the Singapore AAIB. So do we really need anymore evidence than this to prove that our ATSBeaker has failed, dismally under the watchful eye of the present three non qualified commissioners, as delicately put by the Senators in their report .
The past 5 years of mi mi mi has hopefully come to an end.
Beaker, don't slam the door on your way out!
Last edited by 004wercras; 27th May 2013 at 05:37.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albanese on Foxtel this AM
Did anyone watch this wide ranging interview with Albanese this morning?
Unfortunately, I had to leave before the interview was completed but, up until the time I had to leave, there was no mention of the Senate Enquiry report; covered just about every other issue though. Very disappointing from the Foxtel interviewer I thought.
I'm starting to feel Albanese is banking on the public's indifference to this issue and that there will be no reaction to the outcomes of this Enquiry from the Labor Party before the election. In my view attention should now be given to the Liberal Party to ensure the recommendations presented in the report are acted on following their election.
Was the Senate Enquiry subject discussed with Albanese later in the interview?
Unfortunately, I had to leave before the interview was completed but, up until the time I had to leave, there was no mention of the Senate Enquiry report; covered just about every other issue though. Very disappointing from the Foxtel interviewer I thought.
I'm starting to feel Albanese is banking on the public's indifference to this issue and that there will be no reaction to the outcomes of this Enquiry from the Labor Party before the election. In my view attention should now be given to the Liberal Party to ensure the recommendations presented in the report are acted on following their election.
Was the Senate Enquiry subject discussed with Albanese later in the interview?
O yeah...
Sunfish is usually so "on the money" but with THAT post...I re-read it the next day... and felt even sicker..!!
Whaddaya want.? Lets make every May 23 from now on an annual "Be Nice to CAsA Day" Senate gave 'em a bad rap,... poor dears.
And in the meantime roll over like good little puppies, waiting to get our tummies tickled. ? THEY dont work like that, dont you know.
Many in the GA industry can attest, and the Pel-Air report confirms CAsA is a disastrous and dysfunctional agency that has lost the plot, and is headed up by psychopaths and worse.
It is NOT a case of being nice and waiting for changes from THEM...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Any Changes will have to be driven into them like a flock of Sherman tanks.
By politicians.... BY the Industry.
You want some proof?... I can give you proof. Three SENIOR (haha) AWIs so stupid they dont even know what they are looking at...and also have hallucinations about the occurrence. What does CAsA do about it.?
CYA 101 and serious staff protection mode right from the very top of the sh*t heap.!! Just ar$e the CAsA way.!!
CAsA is very keen on strict liability and criminality for everyone else...but in reality the bars should be on the windows of (Non) Aviation House, Furzer St, Fyshwick to keep the criminals inside.
Whaddaya want.? Lets make every May 23 from now on an annual "Be Nice to CAsA Day" Senate gave 'em a bad rap,... poor dears.
And in the meantime roll over like good little puppies, waiting to get our tummies tickled. ? THEY dont work like that, dont you know.
Many in the GA industry can attest, and the Pel-Air report confirms CAsA is a disastrous and dysfunctional agency that has lost the plot, and is headed up by psychopaths and worse.
It is NOT a case of being nice and waiting for changes from THEM...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Any Changes will have to be driven into them like a flock of Sherman tanks.
By politicians.... BY the Industry.
You want some proof?... I can give you proof. Three SENIOR (haha) AWIs so stupid they dont even know what they are looking at...and also have hallucinations about the occurrence. What does CAsA do about it.?
CYA 101 and serious staff protection mode right from the very top of the sh*t heap.!! Just ar$e the CAsA way.!!
CAsA is very keen on strict liability and criminality for everyone else...but in reality the bars should be on the windows of (Non) Aviation House, Furzer St, Fyshwick to keep the criminals inside.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inspector-General of Aviation Safety
Kharon,
I don't know that the I-G proposal was ever a "fix" in the context that I understand you to be thinking.
To me, the I-G proposal is about obviating the need for a continuing series of Senate activities to examine what/how/why/when these agencies are doing things in order to get some transparency. For example, the Auditor-General doesn't operate as a "fix" for each of the agencies examined - but the process does force the agency executives to carefully examine the "what/how/why/when" in terms of the potential fallout from public exposure. If an agency fails to protect the relevant Minister from embarrassment, then (in betting terms) the "fix" will soon be "in"!
Independent review processes just provide a public window to taking an agencies temperature - the relevant Minister will decide when things are too hot (and occasionally too cold). The I-G proposal is just one element in the broader "fix" and there are some obvious parallels with the US GAO and DOT I-G.
I should also add to other contributors' assessment of the effectivess of the CASA Board - in every iteration of the concept to date, they have comprehensively failed to serve any useful purpose.I do not know of any regulatory agency where the concept works. Maybe the first job for the I-G should be to examine the usefulness of the model and hopefully to provide the case to bury it forever.
Stay Alive,
I could take issue with the notion of one Inspector General though, it may be 'operationally expedient' in the short term, but as a long term fix – discuss?
To me, the I-G proposal is about obviating the need for a continuing series of Senate activities to examine what/how/why/when these agencies are doing things in order to get some transparency. For example, the Auditor-General doesn't operate as a "fix" for each of the agencies examined - but the process does force the agency executives to carefully examine the "what/how/why/when" in terms of the potential fallout from public exposure. If an agency fails to protect the relevant Minister from embarrassment, then (in betting terms) the "fix" will soon be "in"!
Independent review processes just provide a public window to taking an agencies temperature - the relevant Minister will decide when things are too hot (and occasionally too cold). The I-G proposal is just one element in the broader "fix" and there are some obvious parallels with the US GAO and DOT I-G.
I should also add to other contributors' assessment of the effectivess of the CASA Board - in every iteration of the concept to date, they have comprehensively failed to serve any useful purpose.I do not know of any regulatory agency where the concept works. Maybe the first job for the I-G should be to examine the usefulness of the model and hopefully to provide the case to bury it forever.
Stay Alive,
Political indifference and the ‘GWEP’ (GP)!
Here was the official Media Release that accompanied the tabling of the report:
The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report into Aviation Accident Investigations, including the crash of a flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009, has been tabled today.
The inquiry was prompted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report into the Norfolk Island crash which has caused consternation and criticism in the Australian aviation industry.
The Senate report highlights that the performance of Government Agencies ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was against the objectives of a 2010 review into their operations.
Of the review’s eight desired outcomes, the Committee found actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against the six main areas being:
§ maximisation of beneficial aviation safety outcomes
§ enhancement of public confidence in aviation safety
§ support for the adoption of systemic approaches to aviation safety
§ promotion and conduct of ATSB independent no‐blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assures a clear and publicly perceived distinction is drawn between each agency's complementary safety‐related objectives, as well as CASA's specialised enforcement‐related obligations
§ to the extent practicable, the avoidance of any impediments in the performance of each other's functions
§ acknowledgement of any errors and a commitment to seeking constant improvement
The Committee made 26 recommendations to address systemic deficiencies identified in investigative and regulatory processes, funding, and reporting. Some of these deficiencies include actions that may constitute breaches of the Transport Safety Act and decisions contrary to Australia’s obligations under our international aviation obligations.
The Committee accepted the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. The overriding objective was to find out why the ATSB report was deficient and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public.
“The Government must respond in a timely manner to address these recommendations if Australia is to regain a role as a leader in effective aviation safety” Senator Fawcett said today.
“Government and its agencies need to work transparently and cooperatively with industry to ensure that a systemic approach to aviation safety consistently underpins all aviation regulatory, investigative and compliance activities.”
Creamy makes the point that the ATSB and CAsA are only following government policy:
Which is a good point to make and wouldn’t broker much argument on here, however maybe it is questionable whether in fact the bureau and FF are effectively implementing the ‘government of the day’s’ aviation policy. There is significant evidence in the report and elsewhere that these two agencies are taking the ‘mickey bliss’ in regards to adhering to government policy.
As an example I would argue that points 1to6 in the media release are all examples of issues, noted by the committee, that would all appear to be in direct contravention of government policy. Perhaps if we refer to the “Great White Elephant paper” (i.e. Government Aviation policy) we can confirm this (my bold)…
..."new ATSB governance framework
In a report to the Government in 2007 (the Miller Review), Mr Russell Miller made a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening the ATSBs capacity to contribute to future transport safety.
The Government accepted these recommendations and has confirmed the ATSBs independence by establishing it as a distinct statutory authority in the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio. Legislative amendments introduced in 2009 give the ATSB responsibilities in its own right under the Public Service Act 1999, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and related legislation, and discretion in managing its staff and resources.
Investigations are ideally placed to avoid conflicts of interest if they are conducted independently of the parties involved in an accident, transport regulators and government policy makers. The Governments changes formally establish the ATSBs structural and operational independence from the Government....”
…..err what the inquiry and report would seem to indicate is that the ATSB and to a lesser extent FF are struggling to implement government policy.
Here is a couple of excerpts from the GWEP (appendix C) that are of relevance to FF and 'GP' (my bold):
Some of that passage would seem to indicate that CAsA do indeed have significant input to government policy, and you are right Creamy 
they adhere to the minister’s direction exceptionally well!
The jury is well and truly out on whether FF actually lives up to their obligations to the Parliament or the ‘Australian Public’.
Hmm..don’t think I need to comment on this excerpt... other than to say…“How embarrassing!”
And for the board’s ‘statement of intentions’ please refer ‘here’, although remember to grab a bucket!
So in relation to FF’s implementation of government policy (the GWEP), I suppose we could grudgingly give them a tick in the (S) (for satisfactory) column.
Note: If we accept that ‘GP’ is also ‘live’ and consequently ever evolving in the course of a sitting parliament. From the report there was a proactive change/enhancement to ‘GP’ that was noted by the Senate Committee.
Paragraph 6.13 of the report says:
Which would appear to mean that Mrdak and the department (therefore the Minister) were privy to the findings of the ‘Chambers Report’.
It therefore follows that some of the department were well aware of the systemic issues highlighted in the ‘Chambers report’ and were also party to the implications of withholding that information from the ATSB.
It is also questionable whether the…“additional funding from the government to improve surveillance activities”, has had the desired affect??
And that is where a good opposition or independent pollie can well and truly make some political mileage…hmm as Biccy said there could be some real fireworks at Wednesday’s Senate Estimates??
Here is the ‘program’.
Looks like beer and burgers….doin a Kelpie!
** Media Release **
23 May 2013 MR 04/13
AVIATION ACCIDENT REPORT RELEASED INTO NORFOLK ISLAND CRASH
The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report into Aviation Accident Investigations, including the crash of a flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009, has been tabled today.
The inquiry was prompted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report into the Norfolk Island crash which has caused consternation and criticism in the Australian aviation industry.
The Senate report highlights that the performance of Government Agencies ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was against the objectives of a 2010 review into their operations.
Of the review’s eight desired outcomes, the Committee found actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against the six main areas being:
§ maximisation of beneficial aviation safety outcomes
§ enhancement of public confidence in aviation safety
§ support for the adoption of systemic approaches to aviation safety
§ promotion and conduct of ATSB independent no‐blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assures a clear and publicly perceived distinction is drawn between each agency's complementary safety‐related objectives, as well as CASA's specialised enforcement‐related obligations
§ to the extent practicable, the avoidance of any impediments in the performance of each other's functions
§ acknowledgement of any errors and a commitment to seeking constant improvement
The Committee made 26 recommendations to address systemic deficiencies identified in investigative and regulatory processes, funding, and reporting. Some of these deficiencies include actions that may constitute breaches of the Transport Safety Act and decisions contrary to Australia’s obligations under our international aviation obligations.
The Committee accepted the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. The overriding objective was to find out why the ATSB report was deficient and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public.
“The Government must respond in a timely manner to address these recommendations if Australia is to regain a role as a leader in effective aviation safety” Senator Fawcett said today.
“Government and its agencies need to work transparently and cooperatively with industry to ensure that a systemic approach to aviation safety consistently underpins all aviation regulatory, investigative and compliance activities.”
CASA and the ATSB are not supposed to “adjust”, or even make, policy. They’re supposed to implement policy.
CASA and the ATSB implement the most important government policy, very effectively. That’s demonstrated by the fact that you still perceive CASA and the ATSB as the solution and, therefore, the root cause of a problem you perceive.
CASA and the ATSB implement the most important government policy, very effectively. That’s demonstrated by the fact that you still perceive CASA and the ATSB as the solution and, therefore, the root cause of a problem you perceive.
As an example I would argue that points 1to6 in the media release are all examples of issues, noted by the committee, that would all appear to be in direct contravention of government policy. Perhaps if we refer to the “Great White Elephant paper” (i.e. Government Aviation policy) we can confirm this (my bold)…
..."new ATSB governance framework
In a report to the Government in 2007 (the Miller Review), Mr Russell Miller made a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening the ATSBs capacity to contribute to future transport safety.
The Government accepted these recommendations and has confirmed the ATSBs independence by establishing it as a distinct statutory authority in the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio. Legislative amendments introduced in 2009 give the ATSB responsibilities in its own right under the Public Service Act 1999, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and related legislation, and discretion in managing its staff and resources.
Investigations are ideally placed to avoid conflicts of interest if they are conducted independently of the parties involved in an accident, transport regulators and government policy makers. The Governments changes formally establish the ATSBs structural and operational independence from the Government....”
…..err what the inquiry and report would seem to indicate is that the ATSB and to a lesser extent FF are struggling to implement government policy.
Here is a couple of excerpts from the GWEP (appendix C) that are of relevance to FF and 'GP' (my bold):
Portfolio and Other Relationships
I expect CASA to work closely with my office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the Department) and other Australian Government agencies, including the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Airservices Australia, to deliver integrated and comprehensive safety regulatory advice. In particular, CASA should maintain a close and constructive working relationship with the Department and keep my office and the Department informed of all key issues and strategies. CASA should also seek to ensure its involvement in other investigation processes, including coronial inquiries, continues to be constructive.
In addition to the agreed operational priorities set out in CASA's Corporate Plan, I expect CASA to engage constructively in processes where it can provide information, assistance or advice for the purposes of policy formulation, implementation and regulation being undertaken by Government agencies, both within and outside my portfolio. This may include issues such as airport developments, airspace protection, ATSB investigations, and any other government processes that can benefit from CASA's expertise.
I expect CASA to work closely with my office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the Department) and other Australian Government agencies, including the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Airservices Australia, to deliver integrated and comprehensive safety regulatory advice. In particular, CASA should maintain a close and constructive working relationship with the Department and keep my office and the Department informed of all key issues and strategies. CASA should also seek to ensure its involvement in other investigation processes, including coronial inquiries, continues to be constructive.
In addition to the agreed operational priorities set out in CASA's Corporate Plan, I expect CASA to engage constructively in processes where it can provide information, assistance or advice for the purposes of policy formulation, implementation and regulation being undertaken by Government agencies, both within and outside my portfolio. This may include issues such as airport developments, airspace protection, ATSB investigations, and any other government processes that can benefit from CASA's expertise.
they adhere to the minister’s direction exceptionally well!
Parliament
CASA has a responsibility to provide advice on its operations to me, the Parliament and, through the Parliament, the Australian public. Timely and accurate advice in response to requests for input to ministerial representations, parliamentary questions and other information and briefing should be given high priority. The Department will continue to take the lead in the portfolio in meeting these responsibilities.
CASA has a responsibility to provide advice on its operations to me, the Parliament and, through the Parliament, the Australian public. Timely and accurate advice in response to requests for input to ministerial representations, parliamentary questions and other information and briefing should be given high priority. The Department will continue to take the lead in the portfolio in meeting these responsibilities.
International
It is important that Australia continues to advocate aviation safety objectives through active membership of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and participation in other international forums.
Through targeted engagement in ICAO panels and other activities, CASA can play an important role in maintaining Australia's strong record of participation and support to the organisation. I expect CASA to maintain its commitment to this framework, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between CASA, the Department and Airservices Australia on the management of Australia's ICAO responsibilities. I also encourage the continuation of CASA's bilateral safety agreements, arrangements and consultations, and CASA's constructive participation in the Government's safety initiatives in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Pacific island countries.
It is important that Australia continues to advocate aviation safety objectives through active membership of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and participation in other international forums.
Through targeted engagement in ICAO panels and other activities, CASA can play an important role in maintaining Australia's strong record of participation and support to the organisation. I expect CASA to maintain its commitment to this framework, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between CASA, the Department and Airservices Australia on the management of Australia's ICAO responsibilities. I also encourage the continuation of CASA's bilateral safety agreements, arrangements and consultations, and CASA's constructive participation in the Government's safety initiatives in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Pacific island countries.
Industry Liaison
As set out in the Green Paper, CASA's relationship with the aviation sector is critical to achieving safety outcomes. Good communication and consultation, backed by a common understanding that CASA's ultimate responsibility is the safety of the travelling public, should inform all CASA's regulatory and public information activities.
Well we all know how that’s working out, e.g. AMROBA meeting!
Conclusion
I look forward to working with the Board and the Director of Aviation Safety as you confront the challenging times ahead. I am confident I will receive your support and cooperation in achieving the goals outlined in this Statement.
I ask that you provide me with a statement of intentions within two months, outlining your program for meeting these expectations, including your performance milestones.
As set out in the Green Paper, CASA's relationship with the aviation sector is critical to achieving safety outcomes. Good communication and consultation, backed by a common understanding that CASA's ultimate responsibility is the safety of the travelling public, should inform all CASA's regulatory and public information activities.
Well we all know how that’s working out, e.g. AMROBA meeting!
Conclusion
I look forward to working with the Board and the Director of Aviation Safety as you confront the challenging times ahead. I am confident I will receive your support and cooperation in achieving the goals outlined in this Statement.
I ask that you provide me with a statement of intentions within two months, outlining your program for meeting these expectations, including your performance milestones.
So in relation to FF’s implementation of government policy (the GWEP), I suppose we could grudgingly give them a tick in the (S) (for satisfactory) column.
Note: If we accept that ‘GP’ is also ‘live’ and consequently ever evolving in the course of a sitting parliament. From the report there was a proactive change/enhancement to ‘GP’ that was noted by the Senate Committee.
Paragraph 6.13 of the report says:
6.13 Mr McCormick informed the committee that the information from the Chambers Report was used to seek additional funding from the government to improve surveillance activities.14
It therefore follows that some of the department were well aware of the systemic issues highlighted in the ‘Chambers report’ and were also party to the implications of withholding that information from the ATSB.
It is also questionable whether the…“additional funding from the government to improve surveillance activities”, has had the desired affect??
And that is where a good opposition or independent pollie can well and truly make some political mileage…hmm as Biccy said there could be some real fireworks at Wednesday’s Senate Estimates??
Here is the ‘program’.
Looks like beer and burgers….doin a Kelpie!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about Inspector General Hart?
Yes it is a good idea, in theory, to have an IGA (Inspector General Aviation for those who don't like acronyms or suspect that this is some kind of code language). But if the IGA is not a straight bat like say Mr Hart but is for a better term 'a government whore' then it won't work. We can see for example that the CAsA Board only serves the interest of the Minister and itself, it has been debated that the ICC only serves the interests of CAsA executives (just look at the ICC membership), the AAT is easily manipulated and only ends up serving the interests of CAsA. So the IGA will be an epic failure if it is aloud to be corrupted by powerful influences, sources of sorcery and sections of the GWM well known for its love of mates rates.
Only two choices here really, the scalp of the Mr Skull and Beaker will be taken and a light patch up job done to plaster over the rot, or a top to tail dismantling and rebuild will be done.
P.S ICAO were out here in AUS last week, anybody know what they were up to?
Only two choices here really, the scalp of the Mr Skull and Beaker will be taken and a light patch up job done to plaster over the rot, or a top to tail dismantling and rebuild will be done.
P.S ICAO were out here in AUS last week, anybody know what they were up to?
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
Sunfish.
I've always had doubts about you, and you write like someone I know, and would prefer never to have known.
Since your recent postings, I will henceforth call you 'garbage man'
You certainly have that air about you.
I've always had doubts about you, and you write like someone I know, and would prefer never to have known.
Since your recent postings, I will henceforth call you 'garbage man'
You certainly have that air about you.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On track to somewhere good!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Competence
Having a CASA top level team who are fully competent and understand the industry and actually know what they are trying to achieve would be a big help. Someone who believes in smaller and more effective government and does not address every shortcoming with a call for "more resources" would be a good start!
Gee Frank tell us what you really think.
You also thought you knew who I was so I wouldn't be relying on your powers of deduction.
I put Sunnie's recent post down to an LSD flashback or a decent dose of Chemtrails from QF94 (remember all those QF bashing posts Sunny, you thought they had forgotten).
As Kharon stated:
Play the ball Frank, some of your postings are borderline loopy.
I have been intrigued to watch the initial euphoric outpourings of "follow the gourd the holy gourd" then, as the realisation set in that nothing is going to change, the recriminations and the pack starting to attack itself.
The next deadline to watch is the announcing of the new ministry after the election, but its not something that I will be holding my breath for.
I've always had doubts about you, and you write like someone I know, and would prefer never to have known.
I put Sunnie's recent post down to an LSD flashback or a decent dose of Chemtrails from QF94 (remember all those QF bashing posts Sunny, you thought they had forgotten).
As Kharon stated:
I put up an argument, you disagree; in a civilised society it's called
debate. Now then; anytime you wish to debate the issues – here I stand, ready to be proven wrong. But the results of cheap shots from the sideline could be best seen on the news the other night.
debate. Now then; anytime you wish to debate the issues – here I stand, ready to be proven wrong. But the results of cheap shots from the sideline could be best seen on the news the other night.
I have been intrigued to watch the initial euphoric outpourings of "follow the gourd the holy gourd" then, as the realisation set in that nothing is going to change, the recriminations and the pack starting to attack itself.
The next deadline to watch is the announcing of the new ministry after the election, but its not something that I will be holding my breath for.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Leftie it would seem that your advise is everyone should just move on, there's nothing here to see, as Australia's "world class" regulatory suite is the envy of the developed world, under which the industry will go from strength to strength? and of course generate safety outcomes that the world can only dream of.
Funny though. I have yet to find anyone in the industry who has that view, CAsA excepted of course, but they are not part of the industry.
Okay I'm prepared to make a little prediction.
If there is no change, GA within ten years, will cease to exist except for essential services which will need to be heavily subsidized by government.
Our domestic airlines will end up in foreign hands, be foreign registered, foreign maintained and crewed by foreigners, because our flying training will not be able to compete to provide the pilots and its three times cheaper to maintain aircraft on other countries maintenance reg's.
Just as our motor industry discovered, its hard to compete against a cost base four times lower than ours, so will the aviation industry.
Its incredible to think we sent people to NZ to help with their regulatory reform project, which they completed in around five years for around $5 million, and offered to sell their reg's to us for one million, but we rejected the offer to spend over 20 years and more than a quarter of a BILLION dollars to create "The envy of the World"
Funny though. I have yet to find anyone in the industry who has that view, CAsA excepted of course, but they are not part of the industry.
Okay I'm prepared to make a little prediction.
If there is no change, GA within ten years, will cease to exist except for essential services which will need to be heavily subsidized by government.
Our domestic airlines will end up in foreign hands, be foreign registered, foreign maintained and crewed by foreigners, because our flying training will not be able to compete to provide the pilots and its three times cheaper to maintain aircraft on other countries maintenance reg's.
Just as our motor industry discovered, its hard to compete against a cost base four times lower than ours, so will the aviation industry.
Its incredible to think we sent people to NZ to help with their regulatory reform project, which they completed in around five years for around $5 million, and offered to sell their reg's to us for one million, but we rejected the offer to spend over 20 years and more than a quarter of a BILLION dollars to create "The envy of the World"
Last edited by thorn bird; 27th May 2013 at 10:17.
...Love it..!
Bit of stress and angst at the Fort???...so out with the CAsA phrase book that covers all occasions...
Look up re ..(seek) "additional funding ... to improve surveillance activities"
This is an old one, been used on a few other occasions...gives the impression that CAsA is short staffed and under funded, and any current failings are due to these lack ofs.
History will show that when Ministers fall for the sucker bait..its all about safety ,you see...then CAsA will blow the dough on pet projects like new luxury accom and buildings.!
This latest cry is the same old, same old diversion and distraction BS.
Dont use the existing workforce more efficiently or target and eliminate wasteful spending....just hold the hand out for more dollars.
MOre dollars is More safety !..the place is like a bloody charity. Give, give.
Wasters Award last week goes to the DAMP plonker who flew up from BNE to CNS to go blow an outfit (OF TWO) in YMBA..which already had small Co./ own DAMP testing in place. Then stated .."short of time, have to get back to BNE". Back next week. And the overall cost is????
DOnt you love to see yr dollars at "work".?
No wonder the place is broke !
Look up re ..(seek) "additional funding ... to improve surveillance activities"
This is an old one, been used on a few other occasions...gives the impression that CAsA is short staffed and under funded, and any current failings are due to these lack ofs.
History will show that when Ministers fall for the sucker bait..its all about safety ,you see...then CAsA will blow the dough on pet projects like new luxury accom and buildings.!
This latest cry is the same old, same old diversion and distraction BS.
Dont use the existing workforce more efficiently or target and eliminate wasteful spending....just hold the hand out for more dollars.
MOre dollars is More safety !..the place is like a bloody charity. Give, give.
Wasters Award last week goes to the DAMP plonker who flew up from BNE to CNS to go blow an outfit (OF TWO) in YMBA..which already had small Co./ own DAMP testing in place. Then stated .."short of time, have to get back to BNE". Back next week. And the overall cost is????
DOnt you love to see yr dollars at "work".?
No wonder the place is broke !
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
CASA top level team who are fully competent and understand the industry
Lookleft:
You also thought you knew who I was so I wouldn't be relying on your powers of deduction
Play the ball Frank, some of your postings are borderline loopy.
Your turn petal.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where's the big ass broom??
C'mon boys, no more fighting. We are all entitled to our robust opinions, besides the best thing to do when Lookleft or Algie start their ramblings is to hit ignore.
The job is only half complete. Fort Fumble and ATSBeaker have been outed, the Senate has there number and the pot plants are wilting. Now it's time pull the diseased plants out of their potted homes by the root and dispose of them.
Senate estimates. As the very excitable Mr biscuit has pointed out, there will be some robust debate. My only desire out of this is to see the Senate provide a framework around any agreed funding. A thorough analysis of every cent handed over. Where its going, how it is being used, does it add true value to safety, is it a necessary spend?
For projects there should be accountability - Periodic project reports, sets of milestones, KPI's, transparency! No more pissing of taxpayer funds against the wall on some of the already documented BS that they freely blow OUR money on.
Also;
• All staff bonuses should be scrapped effective immediately. The current condition of CAsA and ATSBeaker does not reflect an environment where bonuses are either warranted or deserved. Transfer those funds into safety systems. GONE.
• International business class seating. GONE. This expense is out of control and cannot be justified. Put economy seating in staffs PD's, if they don't like it then don't accept the job. GONE.
• Qantas and VA frequent flyer points. GONE. Those points earned are a perk that CAsA employees should not receive. The points belong to the taxpayer, so they should be collected and used in a manner that will benefit the taxpayer, not an individual CAsA employee. GONE.
• Study trips, study allowances, conferences, seminars and every other bauble on the Xmas tree should be halted effective immediately. GONE.
• Management levels should be pared back, the Board abolished and remuneration for executives radically overhauled and reduced, effective immediately. GONE.
• Daily away allowances and accommodation. Did you know that the higher your salary is and the higher you are positioned in the organisation the higher the overnight away allowance is, the better the level of accommodation you stay in is? This is bulls#it. One accommodation class and one level of overnight allowance is all that one person needs. How the fu#k can an Inspector average $130 per day overnight allowance based in a salary of $100k to $140k, yet the DAS, ASSistant DAS and Deputy DAS average around $300 to $500 per day based on their salaries of between $350k to $500k. WTF??
• Consultant fees - Why do you need to spend millions on consultants to provide human factor, fatigue and SMS services when supposedly the 'experts' are already on the internal payroll?? No more mates rates rorts. GONE.
This is just a sample, a scratch on what these spendthrifts are blowing OUR money on, day after day after day. C'mon Senate, pull in the reigns, no more handing these chumps a blank cheque book.
ACCOUNTABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY!!
The job is only half complete. Fort Fumble and ATSBeaker have been outed, the Senate has there number and the pot plants are wilting. Now it's time pull the diseased plants out of their potted homes by the root and dispose of them.
Senate estimates. As the very excitable Mr biscuit has pointed out, there will be some robust debate. My only desire out of this is to see the Senate provide a framework around any agreed funding. A thorough analysis of every cent handed over. Where its going, how it is being used, does it add true value to safety, is it a necessary spend?
For projects there should be accountability - Periodic project reports, sets of milestones, KPI's, transparency! No more pissing of taxpayer funds against the wall on some of the already documented BS that they freely blow OUR money on.
Also;
• All staff bonuses should be scrapped effective immediately. The current condition of CAsA and ATSBeaker does not reflect an environment where bonuses are either warranted or deserved. Transfer those funds into safety systems. GONE.
• International business class seating. GONE. This expense is out of control and cannot be justified. Put economy seating in staffs PD's, if they don't like it then don't accept the job. GONE.
• Qantas and VA frequent flyer points. GONE. Those points earned are a perk that CAsA employees should not receive. The points belong to the taxpayer, so they should be collected and used in a manner that will benefit the taxpayer, not an individual CAsA employee. GONE.
• Study trips, study allowances, conferences, seminars and every other bauble on the Xmas tree should be halted effective immediately. GONE.
• Management levels should be pared back, the Board abolished and remuneration for executives radically overhauled and reduced, effective immediately. GONE.
• Daily away allowances and accommodation. Did you know that the higher your salary is and the higher you are positioned in the organisation the higher the overnight away allowance is, the better the level of accommodation you stay in is? This is bulls#it. One accommodation class and one level of overnight allowance is all that one person needs. How the fu#k can an Inspector average $130 per day overnight allowance based in a salary of $100k to $140k, yet the DAS, ASSistant DAS and Deputy DAS average around $300 to $500 per day based on their salaries of between $350k to $500k. WTF??
• Consultant fees - Why do you need to spend millions on consultants to provide human factor, fatigue and SMS services when supposedly the 'experts' are already on the internal payroll?? No more mates rates rorts. GONE.
This is just a sample, a scratch on what these spendthrifts are blowing OUR money on, day after day after day. C'mon Senate, pull in the reigns, no more handing these chumps a blank cheque book.
ACCOUNTABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY!!
Last edited by 004wercras; 27th May 2013 at 12:18.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wercras
I wholeheartedly agree.
Perhaps if CAsA had spent a tad more time on "Special Audits" of themselves to make sure they were complying with the task the Government set them, instead of junkets to Montreal, we would now have a world class regulatory suite like New Zealand and Singapore and a quarter of a Billion bucks to put towards the deficit, and an industry that might at least have a chance to survive.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Perhaps if CAsA had spent a tad more time on "Special Audits" of themselves to make sure they were complying with the task the Government set them, instead of junkets to Montreal, we would now have a world class regulatory suite like New Zealand and Singapore and a quarter of a Billion bucks to put towards the deficit, and an industry that might at least have a chance to survive.
Last edited by thorn bird; 27th May 2013 at 12:38.
Folks,
Anybody who thinks the CASA problems will be solved by changes at the top are seriously misguided. Indeed, I would suggest that Directors and other senior management, as they come and go, become captive of the culture of CASA.
And what is that culture ----- a long time CASA insider, now a severe critic, refers to the "Iron Ring", the long standing middle of the organisation that perpetuates the "CASA Culture". I agree with him, and the answer is not just another new Director, firing McCormick ( even if, in my opinion, he must go) will not solve any problems.
It would be the post of all time to try to give my explanation of what I think the problem is, but in short, the organisation does not even know what it's job really is --- the administration of aviation safety regulations for the promotion of acceptable safety outcomes.
Since the days of DCA, and the days of the two airline agreement, the underlying culture has been am unwritten assumption that the job is to manage the aviation sector in Australia. In fact, if you happen to be an AOC or CAR30/CASR 145 approval holder --- to micromanage aviation businesses.
In recent years, this underlying assumed raison d'etra has seen virtually untrammeled development, particularly since 2007 ---- although the foundations goes back to DCA. In recent years the "Iron Ring" has been unconstrained. It is not just the old guard --- with honorable exceptions, a certain type of person is attracted to "regulator" jobs, particularly the "enforcement" part of the organisation. Recruits to the organisationthe soak up the culture like a dry sponge.
Creamie has taken me to task for believing there is a potential political solution, but what other solution is there, given the magnitude of the task of changing the culture. I know the shortcomings of the political system as well as most, but I also know that when a department becomes too much of a political embarrassment, politicians will act.
Have we got to that stage yet, with CASA?? I don't know, but it is very close. Another visit from the FAA would be a huge embarrassment, maybe that would be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sunfish,
Several of your recent posts have really surprised me.
I know of the matters that Kharon, Thorn Bird and others refer to,and it is real. Amongst the "small jet" FOI's, the so called "type specialists" have, in my opinion, very limited turbine experience ---- but that does not stop them demanding wholesale changes to AFM SOP's and Checklists, on the basis of said limited experience and, in my opinion, a continually demonstrated severe lack of basic background aeronautical education, in my opinion, they presume to know more than the collective experience of the FAA, the manufacturers and Flight Safety (in the case of Cessna).
These FOI's, in my opinion, completely ignore CAR 138, which requires an operator to comply with the AFM, which is part of the fundamental certification of the aeroplane, and in the view of most lawyers I know, cannot be changed without the agreement of the Type Certificate holder and the NAA that issues the Type Certificate.
These same FOI's are, in my opinion, demanding pilots adopt flying techniques that are dangerous, by adopting a method of interpretation of required performance that has long since been abandoned, as a result of loss of life in aircraft accidents. But, in my opinion, such is the lack of knowledge of the individual FOIs, and the lack of corporate knowledge in CASA, such outmoded and dangerous techniques are enforced.
What Kharon has had to say about the Skymaster/Avtex case, including the AAT, is also correct, that was a travesty of justice. The transcripts make amazing reading, when you read the judgement, it is almost as if your are reading twp separate cases. Under examination in the witness box, a number of pilot witnesses, under oath, denied the statements CASA presented in their names were their views. At the last moment, CASA withdrew their "star witness", the FOI who was largely responsible for the above mentioned statements.
Nevertheless, the CASA statements were accepted.
Amazingly, in this case, the AAT accepted a version of the flight in icing rules that means that no aircraft that is not equipped for flight in forecast icing conditions can even take off ---- that is, flying under, over or around doesn't count --- you stay on the ground.
For Avtex, CASA denied that a new Ops. Manual, that was a condition on the AOC, was accepted by CASA, even when the AOC condition was removed after the manual was presented to CASA, CASA demanded changes had been made, and CASA FOIs conducted checks based on the new manuals.
Thus, CASA claimed all sorts of non-compliance with the "old manual", of course there were non-compliance's, because at CASA demand that a new manual be developed that, amongst other things, covered two pilot operations, which the old manual did not???
CASA successfully convinced the AAT that the AOCM requirements for RPT license renewal checks applied to Avtex, when it was clearly a non-scheduled operator, and both the old and the new manual complied precisely with the CAO, andin the case of the "old" manual, had done for years. That resulted in findings that a number of pilot had not been properly qualified. This became even sillier, when a training pilot did a renewal based on the old manual, with a CASA FOI, that renewal was later claimed by CASA to not be a valid renewal, because it didn't comply with the new manual.
And so it goes on ---- without a major cultural change ??? ---- we are already in very dangerous territory.
Tootle pip!!
Anybody who thinks the CASA problems will be solved by changes at the top are seriously misguided. Indeed, I would suggest that Directors and other senior management, as they come and go, become captive of the culture of CASA.
And what is that culture ----- a long time CASA insider, now a severe critic, refers to the "Iron Ring", the long standing middle of the organisation that perpetuates the "CASA Culture". I agree with him, and the answer is not just another new Director, firing McCormick ( even if, in my opinion, he must go) will not solve any problems.
It would be the post of all time to try to give my explanation of what I think the problem is, but in short, the organisation does not even know what it's job really is --- the administration of aviation safety regulations for the promotion of acceptable safety outcomes.
Since the days of DCA, and the days of the two airline agreement, the underlying culture has been am unwritten assumption that the job is to manage the aviation sector in Australia. In fact, if you happen to be an AOC or CAR30/CASR 145 approval holder --- to micromanage aviation businesses.
In recent years, this underlying assumed raison d'etra has seen virtually untrammeled development, particularly since 2007 ---- although the foundations goes back to DCA. In recent years the "Iron Ring" has been unconstrained. It is not just the old guard --- with honorable exceptions, a certain type of person is attracted to "regulator" jobs, particularly the "enforcement" part of the organisation. Recruits to the organisationthe soak up the culture like a dry sponge.
Creamie has taken me to task for believing there is a potential political solution, but what other solution is there, given the magnitude of the task of changing the culture. I know the shortcomings of the political system as well as most, but I also know that when a department becomes too much of a political embarrassment, politicians will act.
Have we got to that stage yet, with CASA?? I don't know, but it is very close. Another visit from the FAA would be a huge embarrassment, maybe that would be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sunfish,
Several of your recent posts have really surprised me.
I know of the matters that Kharon, Thorn Bird and others refer to,and it is real. Amongst the "small jet" FOI's, the so called "type specialists" have, in my opinion, very limited turbine experience ---- but that does not stop them demanding wholesale changes to AFM SOP's and Checklists, on the basis of said limited experience and, in my opinion, a continually demonstrated severe lack of basic background aeronautical education, in my opinion, they presume to know more than the collective experience of the FAA, the manufacturers and Flight Safety (in the case of Cessna).
These FOI's, in my opinion, completely ignore CAR 138, which requires an operator to comply with the AFM, which is part of the fundamental certification of the aeroplane, and in the view of most lawyers I know, cannot be changed without the agreement of the Type Certificate holder and the NAA that issues the Type Certificate.
These same FOI's are, in my opinion, demanding pilots adopt flying techniques that are dangerous, by adopting a method of interpretation of required performance that has long since been abandoned, as a result of loss of life in aircraft accidents. But, in my opinion, such is the lack of knowledge of the individual FOIs, and the lack of corporate knowledge in CASA, such outmoded and dangerous techniques are enforced.
What Kharon has had to say about the Skymaster/Avtex case, including the AAT, is also correct, that was a travesty of justice. The transcripts make amazing reading, when you read the judgement, it is almost as if your are reading twp separate cases. Under examination in the witness box, a number of pilot witnesses, under oath, denied the statements CASA presented in their names were their views. At the last moment, CASA withdrew their "star witness", the FOI who was largely responsible for the above mentioned statements.
Nevertheless, the CASA statements were accepted.
Amazingly, in this case, the AAT accepted a version of the flight in icing rules that means that no aircraft that is not equipped for flight in forecast icing conditions can even take off ---- that is, flying under, over or around doesn't count --- you stay on the ground.
For Avtex, CASA denied that a new Ops. Manual, that was a condition on the AOC, was accepted by CASA, even when the AOC condition was removed after the manual was presented to CASA, CASA demanded changes had been made, and CASA FOIs conducted checks based on the new manuals.
Thus, CASA claimed all sorts of non-compliance with the "old manual", of course there were non-compliance's, because at CASA demand that a new manual be developed that, amongst other things, covered two pilot operations, which the old manual did not???
CASA successfully convinced the AAT that the AOCM requirements for RPT license renewal checks applied to Avtex, when it was clearly a non-scheduled operator, and both the old and the new manual complied precisely with the CAO, andin the case of the "old" manual, had done for years. That resulted in findings that a number of pilot had not been properly qualified. This became even sillier, when a training pilot did a renewal based on the old manual, with a CASA FOI, that renewal was later claimed by CASA to not be a valid renewal, because it didn't comply with the new manual.
And so it goes on ---- without a major cultural change ??? ---- we are already in very dangerous territory.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th May 2013 at 14:57.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good posts (and bad).
4Dogs – # 1906 '"If an agency fails to protect the relevant Minister from embarrassment, then (in betting terms) the "fix" will soon be "in"!"
Sarcs # 1907 – Nicely argued, it's rum when the crew writing the Ministers "policy" are the ones to implement it; and, when it all goes tits up, the Minister cops it. Nice work if you can get it. Thanks for the RRAT schedule. (roster changed, beers ordered).
004 # 1915 - I was thinking along the same lines. I note in the latest answers to QON, pot plants and the FAA had almost the same number of words in the reply. Pot plant and FAA expenditure "in the budget" and "all fixed" in two terse, one line replies. The FAA may well be happy with such an agnostic argument and caviller treatment; but let me assure you, the official auditors of Government Pot Plant are not, they are demanding real answers to very tough questions. Perhaps we can get a result at guestimates.
LS # 1917 – Expansion much appreciated, more patience than I have.,.,.,.
My Mama, when disturbed by noisy children playing after lights out, used to position at the bottom of the stairs and say in a quiet, but penetrating way "Boys if I have to come up there",---
- it always had an amazing effect, the almost instant modification of raucous, oft belligerent behavioural patterns. (Aside) Bloody goody two shoes girls never seemed to get a mention in despatches though, wonder why??....... - Aye, it's all passing strange.
Last edited by Kharon; 27th May 2013 at 20:39.
First of all, for those thirsting for revenge, you aren't going to get it. Get used to that idea and move on with your lives, Dump the bitterness, it is bad for your health. You will not get any recognition. You will not be vindicated.
Understand that there is no justice in this world and your tormentors are going to retire on fat pensions to their beach houses and play golf every day.
I know you all find that message hard to stomach, but unfortunately it's the way of the world, so don't shoot the messenger.
To put that another way, I'm sure your experience mirrors that of all those children raped by Catholic Priests, and your chances of "justice" are as bad as theirs, as anyone who heard Cardinal Pells oily testimony yesterday would understand. Even if CASA Flight Operations Inspectors were caught red handed falsifying evidence while buggering each other you aren't going to get an apology from the Minister, it was all in the interests of safety you see, misplaced zeal and all that.
Do I make myself clear? You will never be vindicated.
Now back to the problem which, as they say in the classics, is "multi faceted"...............
We cannot simply "stop" CASA and start again. There are vital functions that CASA performs that need to keep happening, come what may, otherwise the general public will become alarmed.
The Australian regulatory framework and the regulations themselves are a total mess, deliberately designed that way to increase the power of the regulator while shielding it from accountability. A simple attempt at reading some of them and comparing them with other jurisdictions proves it.
The CASA corporate culture is totally and utterly putrid, corrupt and self serving if allegations are to be believed. Concepts of natural justice, procedural fairness and equity are honoured in the breach every day.
The organisation is bloated and dysfunctional and its corporate strategy is rotten in conception and execution at all levels.
The organisation heamorrhages technical expertise and experience. It is technically very weak.
The Regulator and ATSB have lost what trust the industry ever had in it. Please note that I mean the GA industry. The major airlines are a law unto themselves because CASA hasn't he technical ability to even understand their operation let alone police them.
I think that summarises the state of the organisation if posters here are to be believed.
Lets look at environmental factors:
- We are about Three months from a Federal election.
- The general public have no interest in, or understanding of, the matter.
- There is an extremely limited pool of available technical and operational aviation expertise in Australia. The industry is small and incestuous - which invites the creation of vendettas, armed camps of true believers and other nasty games.
- the industry is highly fragmented and the fragile ego syndrome associated with pilots means that coordinated action is virtually impossible.
- the cost and revenue structure of GA operations invites "get rich quick" players.
The available options for the Government at this time are:
- Do nothing and leave the matter for the next government to attempt to address. Given the Ministers lack of enthusiasm for this part of his portfolio, this is the most likely scenario in my opinion. I would expect CASA and ATSB would share this view.
- Embark on cosmetic reform now. I view this as unlikely unless the Department, CASA and ATSB believe that it can be executed without any cost in terms of the current Ministers time and that it would satisfy / mollify a new Minister in an Abbott Government.
This may be an attractive option if Mr. Mrdak believes that Abbott can be successfully encouraged to appoint a new Minister with no Aviation experience or interest. I suspect that Sen. Fawcett would be lobbyed against preceisely because he DOES have aviation knowledge and could thus be in a position to make waves and other unpleasantness for a new government.
- Embark on real reform now. This is unlikely because a new Minister will want to be part of this process and in any case I believe Mr Mrdak would be in quasi caretaker mode by now anyway.
So that why I'm saying sit back and keep taking it up the arse from CASA boys. Nothing is going to change before the election. Most probably nothing is going to change after it either. Its just a continuation fo BOHICA. All you will do is mark yourself for more "attention" from CASA if you stamp your pretty little foot.
Real reform, if it comes, can only involve the adoption of the NZ/FAA regulations. The Australian ones are totally broken. The Act needs rewriting to ensure that the "fostering industry development" mantra is included and stop the organisation achieiving its safety goal by preventing aviation.
Furthermore, it is most likely that American or other foreign management expertise will be needed to mange the process.
It is going to be necessary to break up CASA into Two parts separating regulation and enforcement.
The existing CASA workforce is going to have to be made to apply for new jobs in the new organisations in the hope that the middle management culture can be destroyed and its acolytes pensioned off with big payouts
So that is my take folks. Jumping up and down and howling for justice is going to get you nowhere just now, it may never get you anywhere because the Abbott government will have more on its plate than little CASA. Your best hope is that a junior in PM & C decides to fix CASA up as a weekend project and write it up as a case study for her corporate stratey class when she does her MBA.
Understand that there is no justice in this world and your tormentors are going to retire on fat pensions to their beach houses and play golf every day.
I know you all find that message hard to stomach, but unfortunately it's the way of the world, so don't shoot the messenger.
To put that another way, I'm sure your experience mirrors that of all those children raped by Catholic Priests, and your chances of "justice" are as bad as theirs, as anyone who heard Cardinal Pells oily testimony yesterday would understand. Even if CASA Flight Operations Inspectors were caught red handed falsifying evidence while buggering each other you aren't going to get an apology from the Minister, it was all in the interests of safety you see, misplaced zeal and all that.
Do I make myself clear? You will never be vindicated.
Now back to the problem which, as they say in the classics, is "multi faceted"...............
We cannot simply "stop" CASA and start again. There are vital functions that CASA performs that need to keep happening, come what may, otherwise the general public will become alarmed.
The Australian regulatory framework and the regulations themselves are a total mess, deliberately designed that way to increase the power of the regulator while shielding it from accountability. A simple attempt at reading some of them and comparing them with other jurisdictions proves it.
The CASA corporate culture is totally and utterly putrid, corrupt and self serving if allegations are to be believed. Concepts of natural justice, procedural fairness and equity are honoured in the breach every day.
The organisation is bloated and dysfunctional and its corporate strategy is rotten in conception and execution at all levels.
The organisation heamorrhages technical expertise and experience. It is technically very weak.
The Regulator and ATSB have lost what trust the industry ever had in it. Please note that I mean the GA industry. The major airlines are a law unto themselves because CASA hasn't he technical ability to even understand their operation let alone police them.
I think that summarises the state of the organisation if posters here are to be believed.
Lets look at environmental factors:
- We are about Three months from a Federal election.
- The general public have no interest in, or understanding of, the matter.
- There is an extremely limited pool of available technical and operational aviation expertise in Australia. The industry is small and incestuous - which invites the creation of vendettas, armed camps of true believers and other nasty games.
- the industry is highly fragmented and the fragile ego syndrome associated with pilots means that coordinated action is virtually impossible.
- the cost and revenue structure of GA operations invites "get rich quick" players.
The available options for the Government at this time are:
- Do nothing and leave the matter for the next government to attempt to address. Given the Ministers lack of enthusiasm for this part of his portfolio, this is the most likely scenario in my opinion. I would expect CASA and ATSB would share this view.
- Embark on cosmetic reform now. I view this as unlikely unless the Department, CASA and ATSB believe that it can be executed without any cost in terms of the current Ministers time and that it would satisfy / mollify a new Minister in an Abbott Government.
This may be an attractive option if Mr. Mrdak believes that Abbott can be successfully encouraged to appoint a new Minister with no Aviation experience or interest. I suspect that Sen. Fawcett would be lobbyed against preceisely because he DOES have aviation knowledge and could thus be in a position to make waves and other unpleasantness for a new government.
- Embark on real reform now. This is unlikely because a new Minister will want to be part of this process and in any case I believe Mr Mrdak would be in quasi caretaker mode by now anyway.
So that why I'm saying sit back and keep taking it up the arse from CASA boys. Nothing is going to change before the election. Most probably nothing is going to change after it either. Its just a continuation fo BOHICA. All you will do is mark yourself for more "attention" from CASA if you stamp your pretty little foot.
Real reform, if it comes, can only involve the adoption of the NZ/FAA regulations. The Australian ones are totally broken. The Act needs rewriting to ensure that the "fostering industry development" mantra is included and stop the organisation achieiving its safety goal by preventing aviation.
Furthermore, it is most likely that American or other foreign management expertise will be needed to mange the process.
It is going to be necessary to break up CASA into Two parts separating regulation and enforcement.
The existing CASA workforce is going to have to be made to apply for new jobs in the new organisations in the hope that the middle management culture can be destroyed and its acolytes pensioned off with big payouts
So that is my take folks. Jumping up and down and howling for justice is going to get you nowhere just now, it may never get you anywhere because the Abbott government will have more on its plate than little CASA. Your best hope is that a junior in PM & C decides to fix CASA up as a weekend project and write it up as a case study for her corporate stratey class when she does her MBA.
For what it's worth...
From the Media Releases page of the website of Warren Truss MP, Federal Member for Wide Bay and Leader of the Nationals:
Hopefully Albanese will be provided with an opportunity to respond in Parliament with his 'spin' on this whole sorry episode?
From the Media Releases page of the website of Warren Truss MP, Federal Member for Wide Bay and Leader of the Nationals:
Air crash investigation needs full throttle response
27th May, 2013
“MINISTER Anthony Albanese must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,” Nationals leader and Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Warren Truss said today.
“The recommendations, handed down last Thursday by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading.
“The Senate Inquiry was established following the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB’s) report into the Norfolk Island incident almost three years after the event.
“The circumstances of the flight were both a disaster and a miracle. Despite mistakes being made by the pilot on the air ambulance trip from Apia (Samoa) to the Australian mainland, all four passengers and two crew were saved, the aircraft successfully ditching at night off the coast of Norfolk Island during bad weather.
“However, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was not the incident itself, but the alleged breakdown in investigation and reporting by the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
“Specifically, the report states:
‘The committee accepts that the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. Instead, the committee’s overriding objective from the outset was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence on the night and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public’.
“The report makes 26 recommendations to improve the conduct, regulation and procedures governing aviation incident investigations, which the Committee argues were not up to scratch.
“People have every right to expect world’s best practice when it comes to aviation safety, which includes comprehensive investigation and reporting of incidents. The community is entitled to have confidence in our aviation safety regulations and the conduct of our regulators.
“Similarly, it is vital that through comprehensive incident investigations and reporting, industry and regulators are accorded the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and improve systems to overcome existing weaknesses.
“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Albanese must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency.”
[ENDS]
27th May, 2013
“MINISTER Anthony Albanese must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,” Nationals leader and Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Warren Truss said today.
“The recommendations, handed down last Thursday by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading.
“The Senate Inquiry was established following the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB’s) report into the Norfolk Island incident almost three years after the event.
“The circumstances of the flight were both a disaster and a miracle. Despite mistakes being made by the pilot on the air ambulance trip from Apia (Samoa) to the Australian mainland, all four passengers and two crew were saved, the aircraft successfully ditching at night off the coast of Norfolk Island during bad weather.
“However, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was not the incident itself, but the alleged breakdown in investigation and reporting by the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
“Specifically, the report states:
‘The committee accepts that the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. Instead, the committee’s overriding objective from the outset was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence on the night and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public’.
“The report makes 26 recommendations to improve the conduct, regulation and procedures governing aviation incident investigations, which the Committee argues were not up to scratch.
“People have every right to expect world’s best practice when it comes to aviation safety, which includes comprehensive investigation and reporting of incidents. The community is entitled to have confidence in our aviation safety regulations and the conduct of our regulators.
“Similarly, it is vital that through comprehensive incident investigations and reporting, industry and regulators are accorded the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and improve systems to overcome existing weaknesses.
“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Albanese must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency.”
[ENDS]
Hopefully Albanese will be provided with an opportunity to respond in Parliament with his 'spin' on this whole sorry episode?
