Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's lost the plot
More Lookleft ignorance. You are correct, 004wercras and Oleo are one and the same. However what you wouldn't know (which is quite a lot) is that Oleo's profile has been corrupted and techo's have been trying to fix it.
So hate to disappoint you, but as usual you are incorrect. Had there been some kind of conspiracy then 004wercras writing style would have been changed, and of course it hasn't been, as you yourself pointed out. So you need to remove your self awarded gold star for investigative work because there was nothing there. If you also hadn't worked out through your investigative skills yet that Oleo's hiatus coincided with the Oklahoma tornado then again, you failed. Oleo spent several days more concerned supporting a family member who lost everything in that disaster. I know, private information I need not share but on this occasion I will just to prove what a conceited old fool you are thinking you know everything when in reality you know jack s#it.
As for FONC, seeing you are so concerned, my opinion has not changed one bit. If you consider that to be an attack dog approach then you have lived a sheltered life. I didn't pursue your silly retort as I value the importance of the thread more than doing a tango with you. And FONC hasn't returned, strange, is he really that dopey that he still thinks this is a private thread? (he would have worked out it isn't a private thread had he bothered to read all information from the start. Seems he is quick to make judgements based on minimal facts, much like your good self).
Furthermore, your comment about not sitting back and allowing Kharon or myself to get away with things indicates that you intend to continually raise personal issues. Glad you think of yourself as a Moderator or some kind of cyber Sheriff, but you aren't.
As for the rest of your egotistical ramblings I choose not to respond as you truly are a waste of time. I am content to focus on the nuts and bolts of this thread and commit to also ignore your endless knife attacks and endless pooh stream.
No more correspondence shall be entered into with you. I will leave it to the Moderators to enter into any further dialect with you.
So hate to disappoint you, but as usual you are incorrect. Had there been some kind of conspiracy then 004wercras writing style would have been changed, and of course it hasn't been, as you yourself pointed out. So you need to remove your self awarded gold star for investigative work because there was nothing there. If you also hadn't worked out through your investigative skills yet that Oleo's hiatus coincided with the Oklahoma tornado then again, you failed. Oleo spent several days more concerned supporting a family member who lost everything in that disaster. I know, private information I need not share but on this occasion I will just to prove what a conceited old fool you are thinking you know everything when in reality you know jack s#it.
As for FONC, seeing you are so concerned, my opinion has not changed one bit. If you consider that to be an attack dog approach then you have lived a sheltered life. I didn't pursue your silly retort as I value the importance of the thread more than doing a tango with you. And FONC hasn't returned, strange, is he really that dopey that he still thinks this is a private thread? (he would have worked out it isn't a private thread had he bothered to read all information from the start. Seems he is quick to make judgements based on minimal facts, much like your good self).
Furthermore, your comment about not sitting back and allowing Kharon or myself to get away with things indicates that you intend to continually raise personal issues. Glad you think of yourself as a Moderator or some kind of cyber Sheriff, but you aren't.
As for the rest of your egotistical ramblings I choose not to respond as you truly are a waste of time. I am content to focus on the nuts and bolts of this thread and commit to also ignore your endless knife attacks and endless pooh stream.
No more correspondence shall be entered into with you. I will leave it to the Moderators to enter into any further dialect with you.
Last edited by 004wercras; 31st May 2013 at 04:00.
004:
Top stuff Oleo/004 it's okay to get back to the thread then???
Perhaps this will explain the Ferryman's angst in his defence of Pete the potplant
:
Does it all make sense now?? I missed half of it as I couldn't stop rolling on the floor in laughter...come on get a sense of humour as there is much more to follow in between UAVs and noisy bloody choppers!
No more correspondence shall be entered into with you. I will leave it to the Moderators to enter into any further dialect with you.
Perhaps this will explain the Ferryman's angst in his defence of Pete the potplant
:
Senator NASH: That is exactly right. Mr McCormick, last time I asked a question on notice regarding the plants and the $150,000 over three years for the plants at CASA. I thought it was pretty straightforward myself. It is question No. 124. 'If you could just take on notice for me the current amount of plants you have, the current cost of maintenance, who is maintaining them and why you are moving to get a new maintenance regime?' The answer was, 'Details of CASA's operating expenses are contained in the annual report.' That did not answer the question at all, which I was extremely disappointed about. Then I went to the annual report and could not find it anywhere. Can somebody point me in the annual report to those issues of the number of plants, cost of maintenance, who is doing it and why? I did not think it was all that hard, but it does not seem to be in here.
Mr McCormick: It is fair to say that answer does not necessarily come from me, but I think we can give you that information.
Senator NASH: You are the head. Somebody has obviously done it.
Mr McCormick: We can give you that information. I will ask my chief financial officer, Mr Jordan.
Senator NASH: You need to be really quick, because I have about four minutes left.
Mr McCormick: While Mr Jordan looks that up, we moved to a difference maintenance organisation because they were cheaper.
Senator NASH: When we last spoke it was on the table and you did not even know if you were keeping them or not. Can you give me some new information that you are keeping them now?
Mr McCormick: Yes. I think I said I was agnostic about plants.
Senator NASH: You did say at one point in the Hansard that everything was on the table and I think that was under review.
Mr McCormick: It was.
Senator NASH: So you are keeping the plants. I have a particular interest. You might remember my plant, Pete, who is self-funded and self-maintained. Clearly not properly as he is not that well at the moment and looking a little crispy. I do not hold out too much hope, but hopefully he will be okay. Maybe you could loan me one of yours while we are waiting.
Mr Jordan: In answer to your question, under the previous arrangement we had 309 plants, and the annual cost was approximately $51,000 per annum, which was a three-year contract. We have new arrangements that we have entered into where the annual cost is approximately $38,000 per annum. The number of plants we currently have at the moment as at the end of April is 370 plants spread across approximately 10 offices within Australia.
Senator NASH: Who is doing the maintenance of the plants?
Mr Jordan: Just bear with me for a moment.
Senator NASH: I am sure Pete would be happy to have a spare to keep him company if you have one.
Mr Jordan: I am sorry. I will have to answer that question on notice.
Mr McCormick: It is fair to say that answer does not necessarily come from me, but I think we can give you that information.
Senator NASH: You are the head. Somebody has obviously done it.
Mr McCormick: We can give you that information. I will ask my chief financial officer, Mr Jordan.
Senator NASH: You need to be really quick, because I have about four minutes left.
Mr McCormick: While Mr Jordan looks that up, we moved to a difference maintenance organisation because they were cheaper.
Senator NASH: When we last spoke it was on the table and you did not even know if you were keeping them or not. Can you give me some new information that you are keeping them now?
Mr McCormick: Yes. I think I said I was agnostic about plants.
Senator NASH: You did say at one point in the Hansard that everything was on the table and I think that was under review.
Mr McCormick: It was.
Senator NASH: So you are keeping the plants. I have a particular interest. You might remember my plant, Pete, who is self-funded and self-maintained. Clearly not properly as he is not that well at the moment and looking a little crispy. I do not hold out too much hope, but hopefully he will be okay. Maybe you could loan me one of yours while we are waiting.
Mr Jordan: In answer to your question, under the previous arrangement we had 309 plants, and the annual cost was approximately $51,000 per annum, which was a three-year contract. We have new arrangements that we have entered into where the annual cost is approximately $38,000 per annum. The number of plants we currently have at the moment as at the end of April is 370 plants spread across approximately 10 offices within Australia.
Senator NASH: Who is doing the maintenance of the plants?
Mr Jordan: Just bear with me for a moment.
Senator NASH: I am sure Pete would be happy to have a spare to keep him company if you have one.
Mr Jordan: I am sorry. I will have to answer that question on notice.
Top stuff Sarcs! It does show how bureaucrats play the Estimates game and keep stalling for time so they don't know have to answer any real questions. While it is funny to see Sen Nash make them run around in circles it does let them off the hook a little bit. But then again what would I know because apparently I can be
and
all in the space of one post!
Lookleft .... You are correct,
I disappoint you, but as usual you are incorrect.
Last edited by Lookleft; 31st May 2013 at 04:24.
The Great Fort Fumble ‘bully boy’ debate Part 1!!
As the chair Senator Stearle warned… “we all know what can happen if Hansard is used in bits and pieces. I think, in all fairness to everyone in this room, I would hate to see that either party might only have little bits and pieces quoted….” then in order that ‘natural justice’ is served the ‘bully boy debate’ is transposed in its entirety, besides its all good theatre!
Like water off a duck’s back for our DAS!
Standby for Part 2...
Senator XENOPHON: This committee has now completed several inquiries into the aviation sector, the most recent last week. One of the common threads in each inquiry, which was raised specifically in the most recent report, is a prevailing fear of retribution from CASA for speaking out, particularly in the most recent inquiry. The committee continually heard that people did not want to criticise CASA or its operations because they truly believed that there would be some sort of negative reprisal for them. The fears seem to be directed to you and some of your senior managers. Why do you think this is the case? Why is there that perception?
Mr McCormick: I was going to make an opening statement where I would address this to say that I am at a bit of a loss to understand this as well. I can guarantee you that we have a policy that if anybody threatens retribution from within CASA or carries out retribution we will take action and that is the strongest possible action. I have told everyone in my organisation that. I recently went around to see—
Senator XENOPHON: It is directed to you as well. It is particularly to you. I am raising fairly that this is what I am told and I dare say some of my colleagues have been told the same thing.
Mr McCormick: As I said, no-one has brought anything to me or to my industry complaints commissioner to complain about bullying or harassment or anything from my point of view.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr McCormick, you said that at that meeting in Brisbane and people got up and gave you evidence of where they had complained.
Mr McCormick: If you have a question about the complaints, I can go through that as well.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Your excuse that no-one has ever raised it with you. You said that at this meeting and three people got up and gave you examples of where they had complained where they had been victimised.
Mr McCormick: I will defer to my industry complaints commissioner on the details.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr McCormick, you were at that meeting and I congratulate you for going along. I thought that was very good of you to do that, but can I say to you there were 83 people there and before you turned up I heard 23 separate complaints about all aspects of CASA. I saw you in action and you might recall there was one occasion where I was occasioned to say to you, 'Mr McCormick, it might be useful if you shut up until the guy finishes his question.' That was the tone of the meeting all along. Now, you have a difficult job. Safety is paramount. But 83 people cannot be wrong. They cannot all be making up these stories. They gave you, on that day, evidence of where complaints had been made to you and your people and you continued to deny it in the face of them telling you that to your face.
Mr McCormick: With all due respect, I think you left halfway through the meeting.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I did.
Mr McCormick: The second half of the meeting was by no means—
Senator IAN MACDONALD: They tell me it was much worse when I left.
Mr McCormick: The funny thing is that we ended with no more questions and we actually had a beer.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I am sure they would. Since that I have had six separate emails about that meeting, all raising complaints. Now, I know this is unfair to you. I could go through every complaint and it would take 10 weeks. I am sorry to Senator Xenophon for butting in.
Senator XENOPHON: That is fine.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: In answer to Senator Xenophon, there is this all-prevailing fear within the industry. Examples were given of different interpretations by different inspectors and, in fact, Mr McCormick, I was there when you argued with someone about the impact of 145. I did not know what you were talking about, but a guy got up and told you that you were wrong and you had to concede it. He has given me the example here. We can go through that, but it is the fear from the industry across-the-board. It is not so much for you, although people indicated that your attitude at that meeting was typical of the attitude—
Senator RHIANNON: Chair, is there a question here?
CHAIR: I am listening intently, and I am sure that Mr McCormick will have the right of reply. While there is an accusation being put to a witness I would change the rules to encourage that debate carry on so that Mr McCormick can defend the accusation being put to him.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I will stop there. Senator Xenophon had a question.
CHAIR: On that, Senator Macdonald, I will give Mr McCormick the right to reply should you wish to, Mr McCormick. If you do not then we will go back to questioning.
Mr McCormick: Thank you. There is no doubt whatsoever that was an animated meeting, but that is one meeting out of dozens that we hold around the place. I went to that meeting, as you said, and thank you for acknowledging that I did go. I took my associate director, my industry complaints commissioner and the head of the GA taskforce on a Saturday. They came up from Canberra, two of them, and we met to discuss these issues. Now, we came at a time that we were asked to arrive. The discussion had already got itself wound into an incredible frenzy about Part 145, and you may recall one of the first things I said was, 'Put your hand up if you have been asked to transition to 145. Who is actually transitioning to 145?' The mistake I made is I said, 'High capacity RPT', which I had to correct to say that it is all RPT. I do make mistakes. I was considerably taken back by some of that as well.
I am sorry that I am directing my comments a little bit to Senator Macdonald, but I am including you, Senator Xenophon, if I could. I copied you on a number of emails that were sent to me from people that were at that meeting, including emails that were completely at odds with what was being said publicly and also by people who had an audit on the very next day. He was one of the most animated people. He was sitting in front of you. He was saying that he was very worried about retribution and very worried about the effects that were going to happen with the audit that was on literally Monday, and this was the Saturday. We said nothing to any of our inspectorate staff. They went and did that audit. When he came back he said that he was very impressed with the professionalism, knowledge and courtesy demonstrated by the inspectors during the audit.
I understand the audit was not without its findings and there will be a number of NCNs issued. Mr—name redacted—stated that he welcomed the findings as fair and technically appropriate and would use them as a learning outcome and an opportunity to improve his business processes. As I said, I forwarded it to you, Senator Macdonald.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Could you send it again, because I do not have any of them.
Mr McCormick: Yes. It included the email where someone referred to me as a complete idiot, which of course is defamatory. The end result out of that is that I was sufficiently concerned with what the industry was thinking that myself and some of my senior managers travelled to Gold Coast Airport, Coffs Harbour, Armidale—not by taxi—Tamworth, Scone, Cessnock, Newcastle, Sydney, Cairns and Townsville since that meeting. I have met over 17 organisations ranging from RPT operators, maintenance providers and—
Senator IAN MACDONALD: And no-one has complained?
Mr McCormick: Almost invariably they said, 'We don't have a problem with CASA, but we have heard this and we have heard that.'
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr McCormick, I sat and listened to people. I did not know what they were talking about. It was far above my head.
Mr McCormick: I appreciate you listening as well. I think it might be best if I ask the Industry Complaints Commissioner to tell you the actual complaints that we have, obviously without the names—how many we have.
CHAIR: Under the circumstances, we all know what can happen if Hansard is used in bits and pieces. I think, in all fairness to everyone in this room, I would hate to see that either party might only have little bits and pieces quoted. I will take the extra time if it needs to be. I will not cut you off, Senator Xenophon, but I think it is only fair to CASA, to Mr McCormick, to Senator Macdonald and those who are calling in to get the full story on the table. Now, if that takes all the time up, I am sorry but we will do it and we will do it fairly.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: What I should do is, when I have got time, try to collate the complaints and refer them to you. We cannot do that today, and I am not trying to. I did have some broad questions. Perhaps when you finish, if we go back to Senator Xenophon and then if I have got a couple of seconds I will put my two questions to you.
Senator RHIANNON: Chair—
CHAIR: I have been trying to do party-wise. Senator Ludlam did have a go. I am not going to leave it. Does CASA want to add any more—Mr McCormick, you or any of your officers—to Senator Macdonald's line of questioning?
Mr McCormick: If I could. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: You can. Take the time and do it.
Mr McCormick: I will just ask the Industry Complaints Commissioner to give us a rundown of what actual complaints we have from that meeting.
CHAIR: Let us do it properly.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Complaints from that meeting?
Mr McCormick: This is people that were complaining at the time that we took away.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: You told the meeting, Mr McCormick, that you had not had any complaints. Someone got up and said it to you to your face and gave you an instance.
Mr McCormick: This is from the meeting. I will defer to my Industry Complaints Commissioner.
Ms Hampton: There were a number of complainants who had made previous complaints to me that were present at that meeting and there were three new complaints that were given to me as a result of that meeting.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr McCormick told the meeting there were no complaints. That was what they were complaining about; that he was denying that there were any complaints about his officers. My colleague Warren Entsch does not do anything else but complain. In fact, he has publicly named some of your officers as you know. The complaints about interpretations, about the New Zealand issue, about the USA versus Europe and about the 145 transition, people begging you to extend the transition period for what seemed to me to be very good reasons, but I hardly knew what they were talking about.
I really think, Mr Chairman, it is probably unfair of me to raise this, but there were so many people at the meeting and subsequently who have complained that I said I would raise it. I do have some questions. This may well be better dealt with by perhaps a separate committee hearing at some time in the future to test the complaints.
CHAIR: I am not going to go down that path. I hear you. Let us not pretend we have had a conversation about this. I will not support that. If there are claims, as a senator you may take whatever role. You may wish to exchange letters on behalf of your constituents who will not be going to a public hearing or a private hearing while it is under the legislation committee. On that, I am mindful and I will make the time but I just do not want any half-cocked stories out there. You know exactly what I mean.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: We will all get the emails from this, because there are a lot of people watching.
CHAIR: That is fine. Senator Macdonald, you have known me long enough to know—
Mr McCormick: I was going to make an opening statement where I would address this to say that I am at a bit of a loss to understand this as well. I can guarantee you that we have a policy that if anybody threatens retribution from within CASA or carries out retribution we will take action and that is the strongest possible action. I have told everyone in my organisation that. I recently went around to see—
Senator XENOPHON: It is directed to you as well. It is particularly to you. I am raising fairly that this is what I am told and I dare say some of my colleagues have been told the same thing.
Mr McCormick: As I said, no-one has brought anything to me or to my industry complaints commissioner to complain about bullying or harassment or anything from my point of view.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr McCormick, you said that at that meeting in Brisbane and people got up and gave you evidence of where they had complained.
Mr McCormick: If you have a question about the complaints, I can go through that as well.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Your excuse that no-one has ever raised it with you. You said that at this meeting and three people got up and gave you examples of where they had complained where they had been victimised.
Mr McCormick: I will defer to my industry complaints commissioner on the details.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr McCormick, you were at that meeting and I congratulate you for going along. I thought that was very good of you to do that, but can I say to you there were 83 people there and before you turned up I heard 23 separate complaints about all aspects of CASA. I saw you in action and you might recall there was one occasion where I was occasioned to say to you, 'Mr McCormick, it might be useful if you shut up until the guy finishes his question.' That was the tone of the meeting all along. Now, you have a difficult job. Safety is paramount. But 83 people cannot be wrong. They cannot all be making up these stories. They gave you, on that day, evidence of where complaints had been made to you and your people and you continued to deny it in the face of them telling you that to your face.
Mr McCormick: With all due respect, I think you left halfway through the meeting.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I did.
Mr McCormick: The second half of the meeting was by no means—
Senator IAN MACDONALD: They tell me it was much worse when I left.
Mr McCormick: The funny thing is that we ended with no more questions and we actually had a beer.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I am sure they would. Since that I have had six separate emails about that meeting, all raising complaints. Now, I know this is unfair to you. I could go through every complaint and it would take 10 weeks. I am sorry to Senator Xenophon for butting in.
Senator XENOPHON: That is fine.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: In answer to Senator Xenophon, there is this all-prevailing fear within the industry. Examples were given of different interpretations by different inspectors and, in fact, Mr McCormick, I was there when you argued with someone about the impact of 145. I did not know what you were talking about, but a guy got up and told you that you were wrong and you had to concede it. He has given me the example here. We can go through that, but it is the fear from the industry across-the-board. It is not so much for you, although people indicated that your attitude at that meeting was typical of the attitude—
Senator RHIANNON: Chair, is there a question here?
CHAIR: I am listening intently, and I am sure that Mr McCormick will have the right of reply. While there is an accusation being put to a witness I would change the rules to encourage that debate carry on so that Mr McCormick can defend the accusation being put to him.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I will stop there. Senator Xenophon had a question.
CHAIR: On that, Senator Macdonald, I will give Mr McCormick the right to reply should you wish to, Mr McCormick. If you do not then we will go back to questioning.
Mr McCormick: Thank you. There is no doubt whatsoever that was an animated meeting, but that is one meeting out of dozens that we hold around the place. I went to that meeting, as you said, and thank you for acknowledging that I did go. I took my associate director, my industry complaints commissioner and the head of the GA taskforce on a Saturday. They came up from Canberra, two of them, and we met to discuss these issues. Now, we came at a time that we were asked to arrive. The discussion had already got itself wound into an incredible frenzy about Part 145, and you may recall one of the first things I said was, 'Put your hand up if you have been asked to transition to 145. Who is actually transitioning to 145?' The mistake I made is I said, 'High capacity RPT', which I had to correct to say that it is all RPT. I do make mistakes. I was considerably taken back by some of that as well.
I am sorry that I am directing my comments a little bit to Senator Macdonald, but I am including you, Senator Xenophon, if I could. I copied you on a number of emails that were sent to me from people that were at that meeting, including emails that were completely at odds with what was being said publicly and also by people who had an audit on the very next day. He was one of the most animated people. He was sitting in front of you. He was saying that he was very worried about retribution and very worried about the effects that were going to happen with the audit that was on literally Monday, and this was the Saturday. We said nothing to any of our inspectorate staff. They went and did that audit. When he came back he said that he was very impressed with the professionalism, knowledge and courtesy demonstrated by the inspectors during the audit.
I understand the audit was not without its findings and there will be a number of NCNs issued. Mr—name redacted—stated that he welcomed the findings as fair and technically appropriate and would use them as a learning outcome and an opportunity to improve his business processes. As I said, I forwarded it to you, Senator Macdonald.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Could you send it again, because I do not have any of them.
Mr McCormick: Yes. It included the email where someone referred to me as a complete idiot, which of course is defamatory. The end result out of that is that I was sufficiently concerned with what the industry was thinking that myself and some of my senior managers travelled to Gold Coast Airport, Coffs Harbour, Armidale—not by taxi—Tamworth, Scone, Cessnock, Newcastle, Sydney, Cairns and Townsville since that meeting. I have met over 17 organisations ranging from RPT operators, maintenance providers and—
Senator IAN MACDONALD: And no-one has complained?
Mr McCormick: Almost invariably they said, 'We don't have a problem with CASA, but we have heard this and we have heard that.'
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr McCormick, I sat and listened to people. I did not know what they were talking about. It was far above my head.
Mr McCormick: I appreciate you listening as well. I think it might be best if I ask the Industry Complaints Commissioner to tell you the actual complaints that we have, obviously without the names—how many we have.
CHAIR: Under the circumstances, we all know what can happen if Hansard is used in bits and pieces. I think, in all fairness to everyone in this room, I would hate to see that either party might only have little bits and pieces quoted. I will take the extra time if it needs to be. I will not cut you off, Senator Xenophon, but I think it is only fair to CASA, to Mr McCormick, to Senator Macdonald and those who are calling in to get the full story on the table. Now, if that takes all the time up, I am sorry but we will do it and we will do it fairly.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: What I should do is, when I have got time, try to collate the complaints and refer them to you. We cannot do that today, and I am not trying to. I did have some broad questions. Perhaps when you finish, if we go back to Senator Xenophon and then if I have got a couple of seconds I will put my two questions to you.
Senator RHIANNON: Chair—
CHAIR: I have been trying to do party-wise. Senator Ludlam did have a go. I am not going to leave it. Does CASA want to add any more—Mr McCormick, you or any of your officers—to Senator Macdonald's line of questioning?
Mr McCormick: If I could. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: You can. Take the time and do it.
Mr McCormick: I will just ask the Industry Complaints Commissioner to give us a rundown of what actual complaints we have from that meeting.
CHAIR: Let us do it properly.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Complaints from that meeting?
Mr McCormick: This is people that were complaining at the time that we took away.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: You told the meeting, Mr McCormick, that you had not had any complaints. Someone got up and said it to you to your face and gave you an instance.
Mr McCormick: This is from the meeting. I will defer to my Industry Complaints Commissioner.
Ms Hampton: There were a number of complainants who had made previous complaints to me that were present at that meeting and there were three new complaints that were given to me as a result of that meeting.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr McCormick told the meeting there were no complaints. That was what they were complaining about; that he was denying that there were any complaints about his officers. My colleague Warren Entsch does not do anything else but complain. In fact, he has publicly named some of your officers as you know. The complaints about interpretations, about the New Zealand issue, about the USA versus Europe and about the 145 transition, people begging you to extend the transition period for what seemed to me to be very good reasons, but I hardly knew what they were talking about.
I really think, Mr Chairman, it is probably unfair of me to raise this, but there were so many people at the meeting and subsequently who have complained that I said I would raise it. I do have some questions. This may well be better dealt with by perhaps a separate committee hearing at some time in the future to test the complaints.
CHAIR: I am not going to go down that path. I hear you. Let us not pretend we have had a conversation about this. I will not support that. If there are claims, as a senator you may take whatever role. You may wish to exchange letters on behalf of your constituents who will not be going to a public hearing or a private hearing while it is under the legislation committee. On that, I am mindful and I will make the time but I just do not want any half-cocked stories out there. You know exactly what I mean.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: We will all get the emails from this, because there are a lot of people watching.
CHAIR: That is fine. Senator Macdonald, you have known me long enough to know—
Standby for Part 2...
The tale of the two Big Macks continued!
The ‘bully boy’ debate Part 2!! 
Love it!!
Senator HEFFERNAN: I—
CHAIR: Hang on, Senator Heffernan.
Senator HEFFERNAN: I am agreeing with you.
CHAIR: One thing about me is consistency. If someone wants to have a whinge, put it on a note or piece of paper and bring it up. I understand there are complexities around that, but if people do not want to be mentioned, as far as I am concerned while I am chairing, then do not bother me with the complaint, but you will take that further. You have some issues that you will represent your constitutes directly with CASA in a different forum.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Many of them were your constituents, I have to say, Mr Chairman.
CHAIR: I am from Western Australia and they have not complained to me, Senator Macdonald.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: They flew all the way to Brisbane.
CHAIR: If they want to put their name to it, then good. If they just want to go behind the scenes I am not interested. On that, you have mentioned that there have been some complaints. Are you happy to leave it at that, Mr McCormick? Is there anything that you want to put on the record before we go to Senator Xenophon?
Mr McCormick: Thank you, Chair. All I would say is that any complaints that were known to me I acknowledged were known to me. You may recall I asked the officers present whether we were aware of these complaints. Some people had complaints going back many years that had long been settled, which they enlivened again and which I was not aware. Or they had, as I say, not been active at all in the period of time that I have been there. We take all complaints seriously. I will say again, I welcome anybody, any of your constituents or anybody in the industry to send any complaint to me or to the Industry Complaints Commissioner or they can go to the Ombudsman if they wish.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: They tell me they are afraid to do it.
Mr McCormick: As I said at the start, going back to Senator Xenophon's question if I could, we do not stand for retaliation. If we find it, if it comes out that there is a threat of retributive justice, for want of a better term, then we will take serious action. There is no complaint in front of me. I have not had a complaint of that. The board has not had a complaint about that. That is about all I can say about that.
I think one of the issues that we see, and we did see this recently in North Queensland, is that some people in the industry, particularly young pilots, are not game to talk to us, not because they fear retribution from us but they fear retribution from their peers and they fear that once they are identified as a whistle-blower they will not get a job, they will never get into an airline and they will never progress. I have had that put to me. I have had people say that to me directly. That is more the issue that we see.
Senator XENOPHON: I will try and cover a lot of the field in three particular areas in the next three or four minutes if I may.
CHAIR: Just keep going and I will let you know how we are travelling.
Senator XENOPHON: On this issue where Senator Macdonald raises concerns, can I put it in as neutral terms as possible? Senator Macdonald has heard from people within the industry, I have heard from people within the industry and there are other colleagues that I have had private conversations with that have heard issues. I am putting it in shorthand and I am not saying it in the pejorative sense. They feel that with CASA there is a certain arrogance and that CASA is a regulatory bully. Now, whether that is true or not, there are too many people saying that to members of parliament who have that concern. If you accept that we are being told that by a number of people in aviation around the country, how do you deal with that? How do you short-circuit that to try to defuse this issue and get out in the open in a constructive way so that people do not feel this way? Senator Macdonald, Senator Nash, other colleagues and people in aviation that I know quite well have raised with me that they feel there is a certain arrogance and in some cases going into the field of bullying. Again, I am not accusing CASA of that. I am just saying that this is what we are told and that worries the hell out of me in terms of aviation safety. How do we short-circuit this and defuse that once and for all?
Mr McCormick: As I said, Senator, I do share your concerns about this. It is perplexing to me why people feel that way. One of the ways to do it is to get out, just like I have done, and go around and actually talk to people who are out there, who would not necessarily raise their hand or say anything otherwise, and say, 'What are your issues?' We have got an education program going which we are going to increase. We are going to go out more with a proactive message telling people that when you do regulatory change it is a difficult thing to do.
To get back to Senator Fawcett's question, because I think it is also relevant here, when we have moved into certificate management teams, when we have moved into IT based systems to look at risk, we are able to see things now which in the past we did not see. There are things now which we see about organisations where we are in a situation where we should take action. We are not alone in this. If I could, and I am not of course trying to put anything on the FAA, the Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and Special Programs, US Department of Transportation, gave a report to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on the 16th of last month, FAA's Progress and Challenges in Advancing Safety Oversight Initiatives. This is interesting because we are now—
Senator XENOPHON: Can you table that or refer us to it?
Mr McCormick: I will just put this line to you if I could. It may give a bit of information. It said:
FAA’s surveillance at foreign and domestic repair stations also lacks the rigor needed to identify deficiencies and verify they have been addressed. Systemic problems we identified during our 2003 review—such as inadequate mechanic training, outdated tool calibration checks, and inaccurate work order documentation—persist at the repair stations we recently visited. FAA guidance requires inspectors to review these specific areas during repair station inspections, but inspectors overlooked these types of deficiencies.
This is what used to happen in CASA as well. We do not overlook deficiencies. Some of them are very easily clear, but this is an issue which is prevalent across the industry.
Senator XENOPHON: I am not suggesting that, and I understand the heavy burden on CASA to oversee the aviation safety of this country. Can you take this on notice, because I am going to run out of time, there is a perception out there—
Mr McCormick: I acknowledge that.
Senator XENOPHON: not just from people I speak to—Senator Macdonald has spoken to many, Senator Nash and other colleagues in the Senate and in the lower house have raised this issue as well. There are too many stories from too many people. Could you at least take on notice to consider carefully: how can you defuse what appears to be a culture of fear amongst some within the aviation industry.
Mr McCormick: Certainly, Senator, and I do acknowledge that.
Senator XENOPHON: Further to that, there is widespread concern amongst pilots about the flight-time duty regulations, the relatively recent regulations, and the risk they pose to aviation safety. I understand that these concerns have been put to you, but the reports I have had back are that CASA, and you in particular, have been I think the word is dismissive of them. Why is it the case that the pilots I have spoken to, some very senior pilots with many thousands of hours of experience, have expressed to me that they are at the coalface, and they say that there is a real issue in terms of these new regulations? For instance, I am told that in certain circumstances under the new regulations CASA allows two pilots to be on duty for 14 hours and to be at the controls for 10 hours. I am told that the science indicates 12 to 13 hours maximum duty in ideal conditions and that fatigue risk increases substantially beyond 16 hours awake. If there is a delay in the flight through weather or whatever—many pilots I have spoken to, including representatives of pilots groups, are incredibly concerned about the new flight-time limitation rules.
Mr McCormick: I will ask our Executive Manager, Standards, to give you a bit of background on who we had involved in this process of the rule making of the KO84.
Senator XENOPHON: But can you understand why some people –
Mr McCormick: I will say one thing: I am not dismissive of complaints of anyone. I am certainly not dismissive of pilot complaints. Having been a long-time airline pilot myself, I know what fatigue means.
Senator XENOPHON: I know that—with many hours—but why is it that pilots tell me that you feel that you are dismissive of their complaints?
Mr McCormick: We have had two sorts of feedback on these rules: one from the industry, saying they are not hard enough, and from the pilots' side we have had them saying they are too hard. That is always the balance we have to strike. I will ask Mr Boyd to give you a background on where we are. Quick.
Senator XENOPHON: Mr McCormick, most flying passengers would rather take the word of the pilots than that of the bean counters.
Mr McCormick: I would not disagree with you.
Senator XENOPHON: The pilots feel ignored.
Mr Boyd: As far as I am aware, the only feedback we have from pilots, for example, on the fatigue regulations is to do with the representation of the pilots' groups on the safety action groups that we have in the regulations for consultation around fatigue risk management systems.
Senator XENOPHON: Who represent thousands of pilots.
Mr Boyd: Indeed.
Senator XENOPHON: They are saying that these rules stink and that there is a real risk in terms of fatigue and with it aviation safety. So why would you not put a lot of weight on what the pilots are saying?
Mr Boyd: Senator, the feedback we are getting is not that the rules stink, as you put it.
Senator XENOPHON: But it is that they do pose a risk to aviation safety.
Mr Boyd: The only feedback we have from the pilots association is about that particular issue.
Senator XENOPHON: And will you be acting on that particular issue?
Mr Boyd: We have replied to the association to say that we are taking the ICAO approach, and that is what we have taken all the way through this development of the fatigue regulations.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide us with details of documents with respect to that?
Mr Boyd: Absolutely.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide those documents as a matter of urgency, because there may be a disallowance motion that might go down that path; I am not sure. Mr McCormick, I will put a number ofquestions on notice. In relation to the recent inquiry, I think you told the inquiry that you instigated the Chambers report. Is that right?
Mr McCormick: Yes, that is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: You commissioned it?
Mr McCormick: That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: What prompted the report to be commissioned?
Mr McCormick: I had commenced a reorganisation of program of CASA to align it around the functions of the act—to work smarter, basically, and to make sure that we were covering areas that we had not covered in the past. These were things such as training—we did not have a training school—and standards—we did not have a standards section. We had to put these things in place. After the Pel-Air reports, the special audit and the accident report were done, I commissioned the Chambers report to ask, 'How are we actually doing? Leave aside the Pel-Air—that just happened to be the most recent incident—but what is our standard of surveillance?' We did not give the Chambers report to peer review. I took it on as it was, literally, written. We have completed recommendations since then out of the Chambers report. In 2009 the Chambers report was showing us what we were like in the preceding years to 2009. It was not predictive, and it certainly is not where we are today.
Senator XENOPHON: I have got two more questions. What prompted you to focus on the Bankstown office?
Mr McCormick: I will take this on notice, but from memory there were over 77 certificates being managed from a very small office. In other words, an enormous amount of surveillance was being done at Bankstown.
Senator XENOPHON: Was there any material associated with the report, such as a covering note or notes attached to that report, that CASA did not provide to the committee? You may want to take that on notice. In other words, as part of the extensive process of obtaining documents as part of the preliminary enquiry, the many boxes of documents, we got the report—
Mr McCormick: To my knowledge, what you got was all of the report. If there was an email that said, 'Here is the Chambers report attached', you would have had that email as well.
Senator XENOPHON: I would urge you to take this on notice, in fairness to you.
Mr McCormick: We will take it on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: Were there any covering notes or any associated materials with that report that were not provided to the committee?
Mr McCormick: Senator, as you know, we have provided well over 600 emails to you. The only difficulty I am having is knowing what we actually provided to you and saying whether we actually provided it or not. I will go back and look at the Chambers report and we will take it on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: My understanding is that there was not a covering note or any associated note with the report, but I would like to know whether there was one.
Mr McCormick: To my knowledge there was not, but we will take it on notice. Chair, in answer to Senator Nash's question earlier on—unfortunately not about the taxis—the company providing the plants is Living Simply, trading as Tropical Foliage Pty Ltd.
Senator NASH: Thank you.
CHAIR: Hang on, Senator Heffernan.
Senator HEFFERNAN: I am agreeing with you.
CHAIR: One thing about me is consistency. If someone wants to have a whinge, put it on a note or piece of paper and bring it up. I understand there are complexities around that, but if people do not want to be mentioned, as far as I am concerned while I am chairing, then do not bother me with the complaint, but you will take that further. You have some issues that you will represent your constitutes directly with CASA in a different forum.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Many of them were your constituents, I have to say, Mr Chairman.
CHAIR: I am from Western Australia and they have not complained to me, Senator Macdonald.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: They flew all the way to Brisbane.
CHAIR: If they want to put their name to it, then good. If they just want to go behind the scenes I am not interested. On that, you have mentioned that there have been some complaints. Are you happy to leave it at that, Mr McCormick? Is there anything that you want to put on the record before we go to Senator Xenophon?
Mr McCormick: Thank you, Chair. All I would say is that any complaints that were known to me I acknowledged were known to me. You may recall I asked the officers present whether we were aware of these complaints. Some people had complaints going back many years that had long been settled, which they enlivened again and which I was not aware. Or they had, as I say, not been active at all in the period of time that I have been there. We take all complaints seriously. I will say again, I welcome anybody, any of your constituents or anybody in the industry to send any complaint to me or to the Industry Complaints Commissioner or they can go to the Ombudsman if they wish.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: They tell me they are afraid to do it.
Mr McCormick: As I said at the start, going back to Senator Xenophon's question if I could, we do not stand for retaliation. If we find it, if it comes out that there is a threat of retributive justice, for want of a better term, then we will take serious action. There is no complaint in front of me. I have not had a complaint of that. The board has not had a complaint about that. That is about all I can say about that.
I think one of the issues that we see, and we did see this recently in North Queensland, is that some people in the industry, particularly young pilots, are not game to talk to us, not because they fear retribution from us but they fear retribution from their peers and they fear that once they are identified as a whistle-blower they will not get a job, they will never get into an airline and they will never progress. I have had that put to me. I have had people say that to me directly. That is more the issue that we see.
Senator XENOPHON: I will try and cover a lot of the field in three particular areas in the next three or four minutes if I may.
CHAIR: Just keep going and I will let you know how we are travelling.
Senator XENOPHON: On this issue where Senator Macdonald raises concerns, can I put it in as neutral terms as possible? Senator Macdonald has heard from people within the industry, I have heard from people within the industry and there are other colleagues that I have had private conversations with that have heard issues. I am putting it in shorthand and I am not saying it in the pejorative sense. They feel that with CASA there is a certain arrogance and that CASA is a regulatory bully. Now, whether that is true or not, there are too many people saying that to members of parliament who have that concern. If you accept that we are being told that by a number of people in aviation around the country, how do you deal with that? How do you short-circuit that to try to defuse this issue and get out in the open in a constructive way so that people do not feel this way? Senator Macdonald, Senator Nash, other colleagues and people in aviation that I know quite well have raised with me that they feel there is a certain arrogance and in some cases going into the field of bullying. Again, I am not accusing CASA of that. I am just saying that this is what we are told and that worries the hell out of me in terms of aviation safety. How do we short-circuit this and defuse that once and for all?
Mr McCormick: As I said, Senator, I do share your concerns about this. It is perplexing to me why people feel that way. One of the ways to do it is to get out, just like I have done, and go around and actually talk to people who are out there, who would not necessarily raise their hand or say anything otherwise, and say, 'What are your issues?' We have got an education program going which we are going to increase. We are going to go out more with a proactive message telling people that when you do regulatory change it is a difficult thing to do.
To get back to Senator Fawcett's question, because I think it is also relevant here, when we have moved into certificate management teams, when we have moved into IT based systems to look at risk, we are able to see things now which in the past we did not see. There are things now which we see about organisations where we are in a situation where we should take action. We are not alone in this. If I could, and I am not of course trying to put anything on the FAA, the Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and Special Programs, US Department of Transportation, gave a report to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on the 16th of last month, FAA's Progress and Challenges in Advancing Safety Oversight Initiatives. This is interesting because we are now—
Senator XENOPHON: Can you table that or refer us to it?
Mr McCormick: I will just put this line to you if I could. It may give a bit of information. It said:
FAA’s surveillance at foreign and domestic repair stations also lacks the rigor needed to identify deficiencies and verify they have been addressed. Systemic problems we identified during our 2003 review—such as inadequate mechanic training, outdated tool calibration checks, and inaccurate work order documentation—persist at the repair stations we recently visited. FAA guidance requires inspectors to review these specific areas during repair station inspections, but inspectors overlooked these types of deficiencies.
This is what used to happen in CASA as well. We do not overlook deficiencies. Some of them are very easily clear, but this is an issue which is prevalent across the industry.
Senator XENOPHON: I am not suggesting that, and I understand the heavy burden on CASA to oversee the aviation safety of this country. Can you take this on notice, because I am going to run out of time, there is a perception out there—
Mr McCormick: I acknowledge that.
Senator XENOPHON: not just from people I speak to—Senator Macdonald has spoken to many, Senator Nash and other colleagues in the Senate and in the lower house have raised this issue as well. There are too many stories from too many people. Could you at least take on notice to consider carefully: how can you defuse what appears to be a culture of fear amongst some within the aviation industry.
Mr McCormick: Certainly, Senator, and I do acknowledge that.
Senator XENOPHON: Further to that, there is widespread concern amongst pilots about the flight-time duty regulations, the relatively recent regulations, and the risk they pose to aviation safety. I understand that these concerns have been put to you, but the reports I have had back are that CASA, and you in particular, have been I think the word is dismissive of them. Why is it the case that the pilots I have spoken to, some very senior pilots with many thousands of hours of experience, have expressed to me that they are at the coalface, and they say that there is a real issue in terms of these new regulations? For instance, I am told that in certain circumstances under the new regulations CASA allows two pilots to be on duty for 14 hours and to be at the controls for 10 hours. I am told that the science indicates 12 to 13 hours maximum duty in ideal conditions and that fatigue risk increases substantially beyond 16 hours awake. If there is a delay in the flight through weather or whatever—many pilots I have spoken to, including representatives of pilots groups, are incredibly concerned about the new flight-time limitation rules.
Mr McCormick: I will ask our Executive Manager, Standards, to give you a bit of background on who we had involved in this process of the rule making of the KO84.
Senator XENOPHON: But can you understand why some people –
Mr McCormick: I will say one thing: I am not dismissive of complaints of anyone. I am certainly not dismissive of pilot complaints. Having been a long-time airline pilot myself, I know what fatigue means.
Senator XENOPHON: I know that—with many hours—but why is it that pilots tell me that you feel that you are dismissive of their complaints?
Mr McCormick: We have had two sorts of feedback on these rules: one from the industry, saying they are not hard enough, and from the pilots' side we have had them saying they are too hard. That is always the balance we have to strike. I will ask Mr Boyd to give you a background on where we are. Quick.
Senator XENOPHON: Mr McCormick, most flying passengers would rather take the word of the pilots than that of the bean counters.
Mr McCormick: I would not disagree with you.
Senator XENOPHON: The pilots feel ignored.
Mr Boyd: As far as I am aware, the only feedback we have from pilots, for example, on the fatigue regulations is to do with the representation of the pilots' groups on the safety action groups that we have in the regulations for consultation around fatigue risk management systems.
Senator XENOPHON: Who represent thousands of pilots.
Mr Boyd: Indeed.
Senator XENOPHON: They are saying that these rules stink and that there is a real risk in terms of fatigue and with it aviation safety. So why would you not put a lot of weight on what the pilots are saying?
Mr Boyd: Senator, the feedback we are getting is not that the rules stink, as you put it.
Senator XENOPHON: But it is that they do pose a risk to aviation safety.
Mr Boyd: The only feedback we have from the pilots association is about that particular issue.
Senator XENOPHON: And will you be acting on that particular issue?
Mr Boyd: We have replied to the association to say that we are taking the ICAO approach, and that is what we have taken all the way through this development of the fatigue regulations.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide us with details of documents with respect to that?
Mr Boyd: Absolutely.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide those documents as a matter of urgency, because there may be a disallowance motion that might go down that path; I am not sure. Mr McCormick, I will put a number ofquestions on notice. In relation to the recent inquiry, I think you told the inquiry that you instigated the Chambers report. Is that right?
Mr McCormick: Yes, that is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: You commissioned it?
Mr McCormick: That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: What prompted the report to be commissioned?
Mr McCormick: I had commenced a reorganisation of program of CASA to align it around the functions of the act—to work smarter, basically, and to make sure that we were covering areas that we had not covered in the past. These were things such as training—we did not have a training school—and standards—we did not have a standards section. We had to put these things in place. After the Pel-Air reports, the special audit and the accident report were done, I commissioned the Chambers report to ask, 'How are we actually doing? Leave aside the Pel-Air—that just happened to be the most recent incident—but what is our standard of surveillance?' We did not give the Chambers report to peer review. I took it on as it was, literally, written. We have completed recommendations since then out of the Chambers report. In 2009 the Chambers report was showing us what we were like in the preceding years to 2009. It was not predictive, and it certainly is not where we are today.
Senator XENOPHON: I have got two more questions. What prompted you to focus on the Bankstown office?
Mr McCormick: I will take this on notice, but from memory there were over 77 certificates being managed from a very small office. In other words, an enormous amount of surveillance was being done at Bankstown.
Senator XENOPHON: Was there any material associated with the report, such as a covering note or notes attached to that report, that CASA did not provide to the committee? You may want to take that on notice. In other words, as part of the extensive process of obtaining documents as part of the preliminary enquiry, the many boxes of documents, we got the report—
Mr McCormick: To my knowledge, what you got was all of the report. If there was an email that said, 'Here is the Chambers report attached', you would have had that email as well.
Senator XENOPHON: I would urge you to take this on notice, in fairness to you.
Mr McCormick: We will take it on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: Were there any covering notes or any associated materials with that report that were not provided to the committee?
Mr McCormick: Senator, as you know, we have provided well over 600 emails to you. The only difficulty I am having is knowing what we actually provided to you and saying whether we actually provided it or not. I will go back and look at the Chambers report and we will take it on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: My understanding is that there was not a covering note or any associated note with the report, but I would like to know whether there was one.
Mr McCormick: To my knowledge there was not, but we will take it on notice. Chair, in answer to Senator Nash's question earlier on—unfortunately not about the taxis—the company providing the plants is Living Simply, trading as Tropical Foliage Pty Ltd.
Senator NASH: Thank you.
Back to the report??
Okay after the GBBD and a couple of further distractions we eventually got the inestimable Senator Edwards to help get us all back to the thread and that report!
And this is what Mr Mrdak undertook in the morning:
So I guess its…“standby VH-NGA”... "NGA say again?"...“standby VH-NGA”...
Doin a Kelpie….
Senator EDWARDS: Mr McCormick, the report into the Pel-Air crash, with its 26 recommendations, was tabled in the Senate last week. Have you had a meeting with the minister to prepare a preliminary brief as to your response to that?
Mr McCormick: I have not had a meeting with the minister.
Senator EDWARDS: Mr Mrdak?
Mr Mrdak: I have had a discussion with the minister just briefly in relation to it. As I undertook this morning, we are now preparing advice. The department will take the lead on providing advice to the minister on the report, including incorporating the views of the agencies. We are doing that as a matter of urgency.
Senator EDWARDS: Are there any of the 26 recommendations which you, Mr McCormick, are likely to reject?
Mr McCormick: It is a tabled report of parliament and I really cannot go into it at this stage. It is for the minister or the government to formulate a response.
Senator EDWARDS: I take you back to an ATSB report of 1993 into the Monarch Airlines accident in Young. On pages 54 and 57 of that report, the ATSB was critical of the CAA—as it was at the time, now reincarnated as your organisation—for its organisational goals, poor division of responsibilities, poor planning, inadequate resources, ineffective communications, poor control and poor operating procedures. Twenty years later, is it too much of a stretch—or am I putting my chin out too far—to say that, after 23 recommendations of that report, we have not progressed too much in CASA?
Mr McCormick: We have progressed an enormous amount, as I said earlier. The report in 2009, the Pel-Air report or whatever, is an indication of what had happened in the intervening years. I cannot speak too much about what happened in the intervening years and only for a few months of 2009. Having said that, it occurred on my watch. We are a totally different organisation to the one we were then. We do not operate the same way and we do not have the same systems or processes. We are a learning organisation, so we are always on a path of continuous improvement. With Monarch—and I am not familiar with those particular pages—I can guarantee that we have learnt lessons and that we are learning every day, and we are moving forward.
Mr Mrdak: I can certainly indicate my perspective. I know that inquiry very well and the resulting action. CASA is a very different organisation in its regulatory approach and the industry's regulatory approach is quite different to what it was in 1993. Had the practices that were evident in 1993 continued, the Australian aviation industry would not be in the good shape that it is today.
Senator EDWARDS: When do you think the department will be responding to the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak: I undertook this morning to get some advice to the minister within the next week in relation to the initial piece of advice. That is the approach. I cannot comment on when the government will respond to the report, but I think, as I acknowledged to the committee this morning, the minister certainly understands the urgency of responding to the report.
Senator EDWARDS: Aviation safety and its culture cannot wait. Thanks.
Mr Mrdak: I undertook that this morning and the government will respond in a very timely way, I believe.
Mr McCormick: I have not had a meeting with the minister.
Senator EDWARDS: Mr Mrdak?
Mr Mrdak: I have had a discussion with the minister just briefly in relation to it. As I undertook this morning, we are now preparing advice. The department will take the lead on providing advice to the minister on the report, including incorporating the views of the agencies. We are doing that as a matter of urgency.
Senator EDWARDS: Are there any of the 26 recommendations which you, Mr McCormick, are likely to reject?
Mr McCormick: It is a tabled report of parliament and I really cannot go into it at this stage. It is for the minister or the government to formulate a response.
Senator EDWARDS: I take you back to an ATSB report of 1993 into the Monarch Airlines accident in Young. On pages 54 and 57 of that report, the ATSB was critical of the CAA—as it was at the time, now reincarnated as your organisation—for its organisational goals, poor division of responsibilities, poor planning, inadequate resources, ineffective communications, poor control and poor operating procedures. Twenty years later, is it too much of a stretch—or am I putting my chin out too far—to say that, after 23 recommendations of that report, we have not progressed too much in CASA?
Mr McCormick: We have progressed an enormous amount, as I said earlier. The report in 2009, the Pel-Air report or whatever, is an indication of what had happened in the intervening years. I cannot speak too much about what happened in the intervening years and only for a few months of 2009. Having said that, it occurred on my watch. We are a totally different organisation to the one we were then. We do not operate the same way and we do not have the same systems or processes. We are a learning organisation, so we are always on a path of continuous improvement. With Monarch—and I am not familiar with those particular pages—I can guarantee that we have learnt lessons and that we are learning every day, and we are moving forward.
Mr Mrdak: I can certainly indicate my perspective. I know that inquiry very well and the resulting action. CASA is a very different organisation in its regulatory approach and the industry's regulatory approach is quite different to what it was in 1993. Had the practices that were evident in 1993 continued, the Australian aviation industry would not be in the good shape that it is today.
Senator EDWARDS: When do you think the department will be responding to the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak: I undertook this morning to get some advice to the minister within the next week in relation to the initial piece of advice. That is the approach. I cannot comment on when the government will respond to the report, but I think, as I acknowledged to the committee this morning, the minister certainly understands the urgency of responding to the report.
Senator EDWARDS: Aviation safety and its culture cannot wait. Thanks.
Mr Mrdak: I undertook that this morning and the government will respond in a very timely way, I believe.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, I want to come to the issue of the process of the department to respond to reports of the Senate. You would be aware that a report was tabled into a couple of areas of your responsibility last week. In accordance with various decisions of the Senate the minister has three months to respond. That three-month period will fall right in the middle of the caretaker period, which means that significant safety issues could potentially be stretched out beyond four or five months before resolution, which is unacceptable. Could you tell the committee what your plan is to make sure that those issues are addressed in a timely manner, given the overlapping of significant time frames?
Mr Mrdak: We are certainly aware of the serious issues raised by the committee's report that was tabled last week in the Senate. The minister has sought urgent advice from agencies in relation to the matters raised by the Senate committee. We are now in the process of providing that advice to the minister. The minister certainly does recognise the need to urgently review and address the recommendations. I am not in a position here today to give you an exact time frame as to when the minister and the government will formally respond to the report but I think we all are very conscious of the fact that with the date of the federal election being proposed for 14 September and caretaker mode notionally starting on around 12 August that would fall within the normal three-month period. I can only say to you that the government is giving this serious and urgent consideration and looking to expedite its response as best it can.
Senator FAWCETT: I accept that you cannot speak for the minister and when he will release his response but can you give the committee an undertaking that the department's response to the minister will occur in sufficient time so that he can respond before the caretaker mode?
Mr Mrdak: Certainly that would be our intention. As I said, the minister has sought advice. In preliminary discussions with him on the issues involved he has sought that advice as a matter of urgency and we are doing that now, along with our portfolio agencies.
Senator HEFFERNAN: It weighed heavily on the minds of all members of the committee—and you will note it was a unanimous report—that we address the issues raised in the way we have. We absolutely wanted to be open and honest in that report and we did not want to have even the slightest prospect that in future there could be a calamity which would come back to haunt our conscience.
Mr Mrdak: I appreciate that, Senator, and the department is as a matter of urgency preparing advice for the government to consider on the issues raised.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr Mrdak, I appreciate that you cannot with accuracy indicate when your advice will be ready, but you would have some idea of when you might be in a position to submit advice to the minister. Is it likely to take a day, a week, a month?
Mr Mrdak: We already have officers in the department—and clearly me and senior officers—who have carefully read the report now. I have had discussions with my senior officers. We envisage being in a position to provide some initial advice to the minister, I expect, certainly within the next week to 10 days in relation to it. We have been through the process of the budget and now estimates. I envisage having conversations with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority CEO and the head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in the coming days to ascertain their views, to enable me to provide a comprehensive view to the minister, I would hope by the end of next week.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you for that. Senator Thistlethwaite, as the minister representing the minister, can you give any indication of what timing the minister might adopt in relation to this important report and the government's response to it?
Senator Thistlethwaite: I cannot give you an indication now, Senator, but I can take that on notice and see if we can come back to you before the end of the day.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: That would be great, thank you.
Mr Mrdak: We are certainly aware of the serious issues raised by the committee's report that was tabled last week in the Senate. The minister has sought urgent advice from agencies in relation to the matters raised by the Senate committee. We are now in the process of providing that advice to the minister. The minister certainly does recognise the need to urgently review and address the recommendations. I am not in a position here today to give you an exact time frame as to when the minister and the government will formally respond to the report but I think we all are very conscious of the fact that with the date of the federal election being proposed for 14 September and caretaker mode notionally starting on around 12 August that would fall within the normal three-month period. I can only say to you that the government is giving this serious and urgent consideration and looking to expedite its response as best it can.
Senator FAWCETT: I accept that you cannot speak for the minister and when he will release his response but can you give the committee an undertaking that the department's response to the minister will occur in sufficient time so that he can respond before the caretaker mode?
Mr Mrdak: Certainly that would be our intention. As I said, the minister has sought advice. In preliminary discussions with him on the issues involved he has sought that advice as a matter of urgency and we are doing that now, along with our portfolio agencies.
Senator HEFFERNAN: It weighed heavily on the minds of all members of the committee—and you will note it was a unanimous report—that we address the issues raised in the way we have. We absolutely wanted to be open and honest in that report and we did not want to have even the slightest prospect that in future there could be a calamity which would come back to haunt our conscience.
Mr Mrdak: I appreciate that, Senator, and the department is as a matter of urgency preparing advice for the government to consider on the issues raised.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr Mrdak, I appreciate that you cannot with accuracy indicate when your advice will be ready, but you would have some idea of when you might be in a position to submit advice to the minister. Is it likely to take a day, a week, a month?
Mr Mrdak: We already have officers in the department—and clearly me and senior officers—who have carefully read the report now. I have had discussions with my senior officers. We envisage being in a position to provide some initial advice to the minister, I expect, certainly within the next week to 10 days in relation to it. We have been through the process of the budget and now estimates. I envisage having conversations with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority CEO and the head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in the coming days to ascertain their views, to enable me to provide a comprehensive view to the minister, I would hope by the end of next week.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you for that. Senator Thistlethwaite, as the minister representing the minister, can you give any indication of what timing the minister might adopt in relation to this important report and the government's response to it?
Senator Thistlethwaite: I cannot give you an indication now, Senator, but I can take that on notice and see if we can come back to you before the end of the day.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: That would be great, thank you.
So I guess its…“standby VH-NGA”... "NGA say again?"...“standby VH-NGA”...
Doin a Kelpie….
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure gold! 83 people at AMROBA and from my understanding around 23 complaints, yet the Skull still can't accept his actions and apologise!
Shame on you. The more these people speak the bigger the hole they dig, it's pretty obvious by now that the regulator is out of control.
It's a conspiracy I tell you, all these ills of society putting name to paper, writing to Senators and local members of parliament yet it is all untrue, never happened, pack up the show is finished it's time to go home!
And what about ESSO's deflection to the FAA! Solid! Now that's one way to earn a potential downgrade, make the FAA look like sh#t!
As a side point, I am concerned about Pot Plant Pete. I am thinking we take up a collection and have Pete receive a makeover? New potting mix or some worm castings from CAsA's Brisbane worm farm, or time release fertiliser or simply collecting some of CAsA's internal training material and procedures will do the trick. Also a more robust pot with compliant drainage holes may be required. If the holes are to small the roots can drown causing Pete to die (like a CAsA Executives flying skills). Is Pete the 'right' plant for the sexy Senator Nash's office? Some plants require up to 6 hours sunlight to thrive (bit like a CAsA executive). Anyway, I am more than happy to provide the good Senator with free assistance. Pete is like a family member, a Mascot by default
Then again, maybe that prankster Senator Heff has been taking the pi#s and has poured hot salty water over her plant for a bit of fun?? Naughty boy
Shame on you. The more these people speak the bigger the hole they dig, it's pretty obvious by now that the regulator is out of control.
It's a conspiracy I tell you, all these ills of society putting name to paper, writing to Senators and local members of parliament yet it is all untrue, never happened, pack up the show is finished it's time to go home!
And what about ESSO's deflection to the FAA! Solid! Now that's one way to earn a potential downgrade, make the FAA look like sh#t!
As a side point, I am concerned about Pot Plant Pete. I am thinking we take up a collection and have Pete receive a makeover? New potting mix or some worm castings from CAsA's Brisbane worm farm, or time release fertiliser or simply collecting some of CAsA's internal training material and procedures will do the trick. Also a more robust pot with compliant drainage holes may be required. If the holes are to small the roots can drown causing Pete to die (like a CAsA Executives flying skills). Is Pete the 'right' plant for the sexy Senator Nash's office? Some plants require up to 6 hours sunlight to thrive (bit like a CAsA executive). Anyway, I am more than happy to provide the good Senator with free assistance. Pete is like a family member, a Mascot by default
Then again, maybe that prankster Senator Heff has been taking the pi#s and has poured hot salty water over her plant for a bit of fun?? Naughty boy
Last edited by 004wercras; 31st May 2013 at 05:28.
The discussion had already got itself wound into an incredible frenzy about Part 145, and you may recall one of the first things I said was, 'Put your hand up if you have been asked to transition to 145. Who is actually transitioning to 145?' The mistake I made is I said, 'High capacity RPT', which I had to correct to say that it is all RPT. I do make mistakes. I was considerably taken back by some of that as well.
(1) Not understanding the rules you expect others to understand and comply with.
(2) Accusing people of misleading industry, when in fact they were merely pointing out what the rules appear to say.
(3) Not comprehending the dilemma that business people face when fundamentally important and expensive strategic decisions have to be made about new rules, and the head of the regulatory agency responsible for administering those rules says they require one thing, but the rules seem to say another.
(4) Dismissing, as untrue, a position asserted to you by adult human beings in the same room.
I reckon you’d get yourself “wound into an incredible frenzy”, too, (although I suspect that’s an insulting over-statement) if your financial future depended on rules administered by an agency whose head appears not to understand those rules, and whose officers appear not to interpret and enforce them consistently. But as you and your officers get paid the same, no matter how many mistakes you make, I guess it’s easier to remain calm and harder to be sympathetic.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure gold! 83 people at AMROBA and from my understanding around 23 complaints, yet the Skull still can't accept his actions and apologise!
Shame on you. The more these people speak the bigger the hole they dig, it's pretty obvious by now that the regulator is out of control.
It's a conspiracy I tell you, all these ills of society putting name to paper, writing to Senators and local members of parliament yet it is all untrue, never happened, pack up the show is finished it's time to go home!
Shame on you. The more these people speak the bigger the hole they dig, it's pretty obvious by now that the regulator is out of control.
It's a conspiracy I tell you, all these ills of society putting name to paper, writing to Senators and local members of parliament yet it is all untrue, never happened, pack up the show is finished it's time to go home!
No complaints either?! I'm sure the senators would be interested to hear from anybody who can disprove that claim. Maybe with a reply from the icc.
Cream puff, good post.
The adversarial approach between regulator and industry over regulatory reform cannot continue if there is to be a workable set of regs. There are too many voices of concern.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie,
concise and very much to the point
Thank you.
One of the biggest frustrations is trying to second guess exactly
what interpretation the FOI/AWI of the day is going to put on whatever reg.
concise and very much to the point
Thank you.
One of the biggest frustrations is trying to second guess exactly
what interpretation the FOI/AWI of the day is going to put on whatever reg.
Last edited by thorn bird; 31st May 2013 at 13:37.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hansard p5. (9 pdf) : Senator HEFFERNAN: Welcome, Mr Mrdak. I would just like to emphasise the disruption and the unfairness demonstrated—not necessarily by the department—on questions on notice. They came back, and I have no idea how long they were in the minister's office, and were received by this committee on Friday at two or three o'clock in the afternoon. Religiously and with great precision DAFF have their questions back on the given day, and we commended Minister Ludwig yesterday for that. But sadly the questions on notice from Minister Albanese's office are always late. It is unfair to the committee and, as a consequence of the late afternoon on Friday, the hardworking people in the secretariat had to work on Friday night and Saturday just to process the questions. I think that is most unreasonable. There is no strategic reason. Bugger it—the questions and the answers are the questions and the answers, and if they are on paper we ought to be entitled to see them in time to get our head around them. They can often be important issues—and I am sure that Senator Fawcett is about to raise important issues—that we need to thoroughly process in the best interests of the Australian public.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, I want to come to the issue of the process of the department to respond to reports of the Senate. You would be aware that a report was tabled into a couple of areas of your responsibility last week. In accordance with various decisions of the Senate the minister has three months to respond. That three-month period will fall right in the middle of the caretaker period, which means that significant safety issues could potentially be stretched out beyond four or five months before resolution, which is unacceptable. Could you tell the committee what your plan is to make sure that those issues are addressed in a timely manner, given the overlapping of significant time frames?
Why am I having trouble making the 'cock up' model work?, (freely acknowledge NFI how to read 'Polly' speak). But, given the flavour of public comment in yesterdays press and the comments above, a political dunderhead could be forgiven for wondering if, perhaps, there is a move afoot to sweep the mess under the carpet. Although, I expect a Creamy solution is more likely to be applicable; the ministers office must be hellish busy, given the wide range of briefs and the current toxic political climate. Either way, given that no one wants dirty washing done in public, there is a strong case for a behind closed doors solution (frustrating) being implemented. Although I do hear (on the wind) that ICAO can't (dare not) ignore the report and is paying the issue some attention; which makes some sense. Anyone know if ICAO has a mandate to just 'butt in'?: probably not allowed anyway as we have a cunning, registered a difference preventing it.
Seriously though anyone got a clue, given the nature of the report as to what, if anything ICAO can or is allowed to do??? – Leadsled – Creamy???
Interesting passage of play from the opening gambit. Mrdak was doughty in defence, tough competitor but he does seem to mind his manners when dealing with Fawcett, I wonder why. Perhaps the clue is in the NASAG, there was an interesting exchange (pages 138 to 140) which probably best relates to the management of regulatory reform.
Last edited by Kharon; 31st May 2013 at 21:40. Reason: Language of the birds, anyone - ??
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange days!
Top posts all. A very interesting read.
Without stating the obvious, how is Beaker still sitting at his desk considering he's been caught out with his hands in the till and pants down? He'd be more suited in a Bozo the clown outfit doing kids party's! I note reading from the Hansard he is starting to shift the responsibility to his other Commissioners, whose aviation experience is limited to knowing where the Chairmans Lounge is.
Plus, Beaker the intellectual aviation giant, has the audacity to tell the Senate he'll "consider" their detailed report. Maybe Dom James, or all of us should respond in that way to ATSB reports - "I'll talk to the crew and consider it (in a few months)"!
To make it worse, he tells the Senate they'll have to wait 2 months for him
to consider it with 2 other people who know nothing about aviation safety!!
A few interesting stats:
The ATSB accident report contains 48 pages in total. The Senate report into the Investigation is 156 pages.
The ATSB report contains 4 pages of flawed analysis. The Senate report is ALL. analysis!
The ATSB report took nearly 3 years to write and is riddled with error. The Senate report took 6 months and is factually spot on (in my view).
The ATSB report makes 0 Safety Recommendations. The Senate report makes 26 Safety Recommendations.
My view - whomever wrote the Senate report should be replacing Beaker. I also note that Beaker will "consider" re opening the investigation once he talks to his Commissioners in 2 months. Here's a tip Beaker to save you some money. Quinn, Aherne (Q&A) and Davies have already done it for you free of charge! Read their submissions, if you haven't already.. All 3 are formally trained investigators with a wealth of experience. I'm with Senator X on that one. Bring in someone independent with experience, sit them down with the above submissions and it will take one person a month, or less to rewrite it. All they need to do is validate the facts and analysis in these submissions. Mrdak, are you listening? It's easy!
Considering the Governments apparent relaxed approach in dealing with this, I suspect the only way it will be dealt with is if the FAA or ICAO step in.
Albanese is a disgrace. I'm sure if Senator Fawcett gets his hands on the portfolio the industry will benefit!
Lastly, why haven't the ATSB referred to the AFP for a breach of the TSI Act? It's pretty clear in the Senate report that there's a breach. Changing the evidence tables to meet an agreed outcome!!!! Criminal!
Rant over! Blood pressure dropping!
Without stating the obvious, how is Beaker still sitting at his desk considering he's been caught out with his hands in the till and pants down? He'd be more suited in a Bozo the clown outfit doing kids party's! I note reading from the Hansard he is starting to shift the responsibility to his other Commissioners, whose aviation experience is limited to knowing where the Chairmans Lounge is.
Plus, Beaker the intellectual aviation giant, has the audacity to tell the Senate he'll "consider" their detailed report. Maybe Dom James, or all of us should respond in that way to ATSB reports - "I'll talk to the crew and consider it (in a few months)"!
To make it worse, he tells the Senate they'll have to wait 2 months for him
to consider it with 2 other people who know nothing about aviation safety!!
A few interesting stats:
The ATSB accident report contains 48 pages in total. The Senate report into the Investigation is 156 pages.
The ATSB report contains 4 pages of flawed analysis. The Senate report is ALL. analysis!
The ATSB report took nearly 3 years to write and is riddled with error. The Senate report took 6 months and is factually spot on (in my view).
The ATSB report makes 0 Safety Recommendations. The Senate report makes 26 Safety Recommendations.
My view - whomever wrote the Senate report should be replacing Beaker. I also note that Beaker will "consider" re opening the investigation once he talks to his Commissioners in 2 months. Here's a tip Beaker to save you some money. Quinn, Aherne (Q&A) and Davies have already done it for you free of charge! Read their submissions, if you haven't already.. All 3 are formally trained investigators with a wealth of experience. I'm with Senator X on that one. Bring in someone independent with experience, sit them down with the above submissions and it will take one person a month, or less to rewrite it. All they need to do is validate the facts and analysis in these submissions. Mrdak, are you listening? It's easy!
Considering the Governments apparent relaxed approach in dealing with this, I suspect the only way it will be dealt with is if the FAA or ICAO step in.
Albanese is a disgrace. I'm sure if Senator Fawcett gets his hands on the portfolio the industry will benefit!
Lastly, why haven't the ATSB referred to the AFP for a breach of the TSI Act? It's pretty clear in the Senate report that there's a breach. Changing the evidence tables to meet an agreed outcome!!!! Criminal!
Rant over! Blood pressure dropping!
Seriously though anyone got a clue, given the nature of the report as to
what, if anything ICAO can or is allowed to do???
what, if anything ICAO can or is allowed to do???
but at the end of the day they are a diplomatic instrument. As Australia was one of the original signatories to the Chicago Convention and having a seat on the Security Council then it would also be highly embarrassing to everyone if Australia was held up to international ridicule.On the other hand the EU could blacklist Australia but once again given our assistance to NATO in Afghanistan, unlikely. Remembering that aviation policy has been an instrument of State diplomacy and politics for years. The FAA could downgrade us but that would not be an overnight exercise. It would require another audit and I doubt that the FAA would accept a few "we will do better" assurances from CASA. There would also be diplomatic toing and froing as whatever Government finally realises the consequences of the true state of aviation oversight in this country.
So in effect it is the overseas agencies who become ICAO's policemen, but they are more likely to issue warnings rather than on-the-spot fines or a ride in the back of the Divvy van.
Last edited by Lookleft; 1st Jun 2013 at 00:10.
Have you seen Team America: World Police!? If so, remember the scene in which Hans Blix visits Kim Jong-il and demands to audit North Korea’s nuclear plants?
Then Hans gets eaten by Kim Jong-il’s pet shark.
As a third-world country, aviation-wise, I’d expect Australia’s response to noises from ICAO to be similar …
Kim Jong-il: Aw, Hans Brix!
Hans Blix: Let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind.
Kim Jong-il: Hans, ya-breakin' my barrs here, Hans, ya breakin' my barrs!
Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace, or else...
Kim Jong-il: Or erse what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very, very angry with you... And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
Hans Blix: Let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind.
Kim Jong-il: Hans, ya-breakin' my barrs here, Hans, ya breakin' my barrs!
Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace, or else...
Kim Jong-il: Or erse what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very, very angry with you... And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
As a third-world country, aviation-wise, I’d expect Australia’s response to noises from ICAO to be similar …
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear you are right Creamie, ICAO has no real power.
I wonder though, if CAsA would be so flippant with the USA?
Politically could they stand the heat a downgrade would bring?
Then again they seem to be treating our parliament with contempt
so why would they bother with a foreign power? they could just complain
that the USA was interfering with our internal affairs.
I wonder though, if CAsA would be so flippant with the USA?
Politically could they stand the heat a downgrade would bring?
Then again they seem to be treating our parliament with contempt
so why would they bother with a foreign power? they could just complain
that the USA was interfering with our internal affairs.
Last edited by thorn bird; 1st Jun 2013 at 01:40.
What concerns me is that there may be an issue that ATSB should have finished investigating and hasn't. That should have resulted in CASA beiNg alerted to something, but wasn't, that results in an operator doing something they shouldn't ....... And that results in a smoking hole.
To put it another way, we may be overtaken by events while these clever dicks in Canberra are arguing among themselves. Be vigilant. We have to try and make what we have got to work, even with the limited trust and cooperation that is currently on display.
To put it another way, we may be overtaken by events while these clever dicks in Canberra are arguing among themselves. Be vigilant. We have to try and make what we have got to work, even with the limited trust and cooperation that is currently on display.
Last edited by Sunfish; 1st Jun 2013 at 02:22.
Oops…has proposed CASR 91.055 slipped through the cracks?
Slight thread drift...but it is the weekend and parts of that Hansard are pure gold!
On page 97-98 of the Hansard Senator Williams initiates a line of questioning in regards to PEDs and obviously he is angling for a response from FF in regards to the AG’s indiscretion on the 23rd of April. What followed though was quite interesting:
Hmm…well a quick check of the 'FOI disclosure log' it would appear FF has yet to publish that request...guess we'll be seeing it real soon now!
However then the questioning goes to r309A and the proposed regulation of PEDs:
So let’s help the perplexed DAS out a little…hmm so 2001 and PEDs there was a NPRM draft dealing with PEDs, see ‘here’.
Quote from the original AC 91.050:
Ok so we can see that the PEDs issue started as an AC draft in 2001, it then became an updated draft (AC 91-050) in 2003:
New rule changes.
But after that the trail goes cold…
Oh well guess its been stuck somewhere in the drafting office for the next decade…hmm I guess there’s nothing too unusual about that, CASR 91.055 certainly wouldn’t be on its pat malone in the lost reg dept???
Thanks for that 4dogs!
Either way it is still in the drafting office waiting for what exactly??
On page 97-98 of the Hansard Senator Williams initiates a line of questioning in regards to PEDs and obviously he is angling for a response from FF in regards to the AG’s indiscretion on the 23rd of April. What followed though was quite interesting:
Mr McCormick: I am sorry, I will correct that. We do have a freedom of information request. My information commissioner can tell you that.
Senator WILLIAMS: I believe Ms Smith-Roberts said that there was no requirement for Qantas to report a potential safety breach of this type to CASA—is that correct—when someone does not turn their phone off or their electrical item?
Senator WILLIAMS: I believe Ms Smith-Roberts said that there was no requirement for Qantas to report a potential safety breach of this type to CASA—is that correct—when someone does not turn their phone off or their electrical item?
However then the questioning goes to r309A and the proposed regulation of PEDs:
Mr McCormick: The normal manner would be that they would report it to their airline. The crew would report it to the airline and the airline would write to us. That is the normal method. I am unaware of whether any flight attendants have written to us directly.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr McCormick, can you confirm that under reg 309A it is actually a strict liability offence to disregard instructions of a crew member?
Mr McCormick: I will take that on notice. I do not have the regs with me at the moment.
Senator FAWCETT: The other question for CASA is that I notice that in 2001 you started a process for personal electronic devices, a notice for rule-making, where it was strict to control. I also notice there have been a number of drafts and consultations of that, but I do not actually find anywhere an approved regulation around personal electronic devices. With that process that started in 2001, has CASA actually issued a regulation control on these devices yet?
CHAIR: I missed something. I was talking. We flipped somehow back to Senator Fawcett.
Senator WILLIAMS: I asked Senator Fawcett to help me with that question.
Mr McCormick: I am not aware of that, but I will take it on notice and give you a breakdown of what has happened. Did you say since 2001?
Senator WILLIAMS: That was the original notice, yes. If you could confirm that the head of power that the flight crew operate under to tell people to turn phones off is 309 Alpha, which is a strict liability offence.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr McCormick, can you confirm that under reg 309A it is actually a strict liability offence to disregard instructions of a crew member?
Mr McCormick: I will take that on notice. I do not have the regs with me at the moment.
Senator FAWCETT: The other question for CASA is that I notice that in 2001 you started a process for personal electronic devices, a notice for rule-making, where it was strict to control. I also notice there have been a number of drafts and consultations of that, but I do not actually find anywhere an approved regulation around personal electronic devices. With that process that started in 2001, has CASA actually issued a regulation control on these devices yet?
CHAIR: I missed something. I was talking. We flipped somehow back to Senator Fawcett.
Senator WILLIAMS: I asked Senator Fawcett to help me with that question.
Mr McCormick: I am not aware of that, but I will take it on notice and give you a breakdown of what has happened. Did you say since 2001?
Senator WILLIAMS: That was the original notice, yes. If you could confirm that the head of power that the flight crew operate under to tell people to turn phones off is 309 Alpha, which is a strict liability offence.
Quote from the original AC 91.050:
5.1 Regulations. CASR 91.055 requires the operator and the pilot in command to prohibit or limit the operation of a PED on board an aircraft if there is reason to believe the PED may adversely affect the safety of the aircraft. CASR’s 91.050, 91.055 and 91.1010 provides the pilot in command with the necessary authority to control the use of potentially hazardous PEDs on board his/her aircraft, and obliges persons on board to comply with legitimate safety instructions.
Draft AC 91-050(0) - Portable electronic devices
Draft AC 91-050(0) - Portable electronic devices has been updated for your review.
19 Jun 2003
Draft AC 91-050(0) - Portable electronic devices has been updated for your review.
19 Jun 2003
But after that the trail goes cold…
Oh well guess its been stuck somewhere in the drafting office for the next decade…hmm I guess there’s nothing too unusual about that, CASR 91.055 certainly wouldn’t be on its pat malone in the lost reg dept???
Thanks for that 4dogs!
Either way it is still in the drafting office waiting for what exactly??
Last edited by Sarcs; 1st Jun 2013 at 09:01.
Yes, but that interchange was a return to the usual Laborial agenda for estimates. The Coalition wants to embarrass the Labor government by suggesting the Attorney-General committed an offence under reg 309A by failing to turn off his phone when instructed by a crew member. Meanwhile, all the Labor spies are looking for Coalition members doing the same. Their primary concern is political point-scoring, not safety.
(As an aside, I note obligations under 309A depend on one of our favourite counter-intuitive terms: “flight time”. Even on the broadest interpretation of that term, there is no obligation to comply with the operator’s/PIC’s directions to the extent they purport to apply before an aircraft starts taxiing under its own power, or after it comes to a halt at the gate. So, for example, the PIC cannot give a binding direction, under 309A, that a person turn of her mobile phone when the aircraft is being pushed-back, or that a person leave her mobile phone off while disembarking the aircraft and walking across the tarmac.)
(As an aside, I note obligations under 309A depend on one of our favourite counter-intuitive terms: “flight time”. Even on the broadest interpretation of that term, there is no obligation to comply with the operator’s/PIC’s directions to the extent they purport to apply before an aircraft starts taxiing under its own power, or after it comes to a halt at the gate. So, for example, the PIC cannot give a binding direction, under 309A, that a person turn of her mobile phone when the aircraft is being pushed-back, or that a person leave her mobile phone off while disembarking the aircraft and walking across the tarmac.)
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PEDs in Part 91
Sarcs,
The 2011 consultation draft includes:
which continues to 8 sub-regulations, the last of which is the strict liability clause.
So, it has merely shifted rather than fallen through the cracks.
Stay Alive,
The 2011 consultation draft includes:
Division 91.B.3 Portable electronic devices on aircraft
91.095 Use of portable electronic devices
(1) Subject to this regulation, a person on board an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if:
(a) he or she operates a portable electronic device on the aircraft during the flight; and
(b) the device is not a portable electronic device mentioned in subregulation (2).
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
91.095 Use of portable electronic devices
(1) Subject to this regulation, a person on board an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if:
(a) he or she operates a portable electronic device on the aircraft during the flight; and
(b) the device is not a portable electronic device mentioned in subregulation (2).
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
So, it has merely shifted rather than fallen through the cracks.
Stay Alive,