Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

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

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Old 21st Jun 2013, 17:39
  #2121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
Australian Story this Monday night on ABC TV for Hempel, once again CASA's efficiency, effectiveness and diligence will be on display.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Sunfish, what else can be done?? People should cast their minds back to the fate of the old Department of Customs and Excise, when it became too big a public embarrassment for the politicians.

Some of those inquiries I mentioned over many years were Royal Commissions.

Reviewing the SMABC submission to Miller, I don't think there was one reservation or forecast that was not proved entirely justified or accurate by the Pel Air Report.

Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Jun 2013 at 17:42.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2013, 22:23
  #2122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Hmmm.

LS # 2133 "Reviewing the SMABC submission to Miller, - link here.

Hansard: It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations.
Looks like the 'back-flip' has been identified, Barrier decimation, Polar decimation, Airtex decimation, Pel Air – back in the air within a fortnight, over Christmas, although they were ferociously disciplined with one of Creamies (world famous) wet lettuce leaves. I'm all in favour of academic, fine legal point scoring on the TSI Act questions; but in sympathy for Wodger I feel that all that lovely paperwork generated to support the original 'slash and burn' approach should be examined. Who put the brakes on and why ?, is a question that needs to be closely examined, very closely indeed. In fact, to eliminate the "Bankstown Boys" from 'our inquiries', as they say, all management pronouncements from that office should be put under the proverbial microscope and reviewed very carefully.

Hansard: That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change.
It also intimates that identified areas of CASA accepted and audited SOP were indeed sub par and had been for some time. The Hansard paragraph above takes us into some pretty murky water. It's difficult to understand why PA got away with sloppy SOP and harder again to define the ramping up of evidence for the AAT a'la Airtex, then the almost magical change of stance; where a few paragraphs hastily banged into a COM made all the issues go away 'poof'. Clearly, so impressed was CASA by the masterful changes made over a few days that they hired the author. That must be quite a collection of master document riggers at BK now.

Perhaps the LSD could weigh in and save everyone a lot of trouble, embarrassment and tax payer dollars. There's a chance to shine here for the LSD against a certainty of being covered in muck: me?, why I'd start polishing right now because when the lid is blown off this chamber pot, the aftermath is going to be a big, big clean up job, huge.

I expect the minister is too thaid up to worry about Gobbledocks beloved elephants wreaking havoc in the shrubbery; but that's OK, I mean poncing about with a bunch of kids in a 'new' classroom is so much more important. So, all's well that ends well.

"What does this knave here? Get you gone, sirrah:
the complaints I have heard of you I do not all
believe: 'tis my slowness that I do not; for I know
you lack not folly to commit them, and have ability
enough to make such knaveries yours."

Last edited by Kharon; 21st Jun 2013 at 22:46. Reason: 500 K, that's a serious number, considering.
Kharon is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2013, 23:49
  #2123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this. The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment. To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields. There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.
[Bolding added.]

NO.

There is a very clear case for THE GOVERNMENT– NOT CASA - to determine what standards apply to the various classifications of operations.

The reason classification of operations remains the stinking detritus at the centre of the running sore that is the regulatory ‘reform’ program, is that successive governments have expected a regulatory authority to perform a political function. Consulting with industry merely produces a bunch of irreconcilable priorities – essentially, cost versus safety and benefits versus dis-benefits. The decision as to what safety risks and other dis-benefits will be traded off in return for what benefits is a POLITICAL DECISION, NOT THE REGULATOR’S DECISION.

“To put [aerial ambulance] into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields.” No sh*t, Sherlock. And precisely the same logic applies to any classification system which, by definition, results in different standards and therefore different levels of safety. CASA IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE ORGANISATION to decide where those lines are drawn and, thereby, whose life will be at greater risk in return for what benefits.

If a future government of which Senator Fawcett is a part continues to abrogate its responsibility to make the rules (and accept the political consequences of the trade offs that must inevitably be made in those rules), the “new” aerial ambulance classification will go the same way as classification of operation reforms generally: nowhere.

Last edited by Creampuff; 21st Jun 2013 at 23:52.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 01:15
  #2124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Well speak up Creamy!

Here is a thought Creamy tell him and Nick personally what you think...

Dear Senator Fawcett,

Dear Senator Xenophon,

Sarcs
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 01:24
  #2125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
I'll urge a close friend to make a submission to the 'short inquiry' into the regulatory reform program.

Last edited by Creampuff; 22nd Jun 2013 at 01:24.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 03:20
  #2126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Unhappy Safety vs Politics

Creamie,

You'll be pleased to know that the essence of your advice has already been given

One interesting sidebar to the discussion emerges - politicians of all persusasions are very sensitive about the risks inherent in political interference in safety matters when there are executive agencies specifically in place to advise on those matters. The chances of getting a Ministerial Directive to an agency that completely overrides that agency's advice are gusting well south of zero!

To even get close, the Minister would have to be in receipt of advice that he/she could reasonably defend as being better informed, more accurate and more reliable than that provided by (generally) one of their own portfolio agencies. That could not be contemplated in the Westminster tradition without shooting the agency head (and obvious disciples) first. The replacement then finds him/herself restrained by a Ministerial Directive that may not result in the required outcome - and must face the Minister in the 'painted-in corner' and inform the Minister that he/she has actually screwed the system by their directive and now cannot blame anyone else but themselves!

So, even if they still felt so driven as to directly interfere, where do they get decent advice?

The Australian aviation world is awash with semi-hysterical single issue 'squeaky wheels', towing baggage carts a mile long that any sane person would keep at a very long arms-length. The Miller Report demonstrates to me the dangers of examining an aviation issue from solely one institutionalised background - the blame-allocation/punishment-seeking legal profession - without sufficient balance provided by the 'grey letter' issues of acceptable human responses within policy boundaries, some of which may be prescribed in law. So it requires a collegiate solution. - do we have any organisations that are widely recognised as non-partisan bodies that are fearless and world standard in their advice, as well as being prepared to get their hands dirty in an area that is not well-suited to judicial processes of examination?

I don't have the answer and certainly to this point it doesn't appear that the politicians do either. It would be very helpful to get some suggestions as to how we might practically move to the political outcome you so strongly suggest

Stay Alive,

Last edited by 4dogs; 22nd Jun 2013 at 03:26.
4dogs is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 06:26
  #2127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,470
4dogs, the answer to your question is that, yes, there are people who can " deal with" CASA and ATSB without getting deterred by the "safety" and myriad technical "bullshit baffles brains" defenses those organizations use. Those people are the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Their specialty is cutting bureaucrats down to size. Contrary to what some people think the " it's too technical for you to understand, so leave us alone " defense has been advanced by many government organizations over the years and PM &C are quite capable of slicing through them like a hot knife through butter, as other institutions have found out to their cost.

The problem is getting the issue on PM & Cs radar screen because they are very busy and hardworking people with a lot of issues on their plate at the best of times.

Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd Jun 2013 at 06:29.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 07:43
  #2128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
[P]oliticians of all persusasions are very sensitive about the risks inherent in political interference in safety matters when there are executive agencies specifically in place to advise on those matters. The chances of getting a Ministerial Directive to an agency that completely overrides that agency's advice are gusting well south of zero!
Yes – that’s the fundamental problem of structure and process. The regulatory agency is managing government, not vice versa.

In a normal world, the Department of Transport or Aviation would be giving policy advice and arranging for rules to be made to give effect to the policy chosen by the Minister/Cabinet. The regulatory authority would then just administer those rules.

Even if Australia has deteriorated to the point at which the regulator contains the ‘brains trust’, it should still only be giving ‘advice’ on the risks and benefits, and the government (the Minister and portfolio department) should make the ultimate political decision as to the trade off. Because nobody in government wants to make a decision upsetting anyone, it’s left to the regulator to reconcile the irreconcilable – which it can’t, which is why the regulatory reform program will drift along forever. The industry swallows it hook, line and sinker, and blames the regulatory authority.

The point made by Senator Fawcett about the trade off between safety standards and viability/practicality is not rocket surgery. (Dick Smith butted his head against the wall trying to make the same point, but few wanted to listen to him.) It applies to the entirety of the classification of operations issue and the rules generally. But if successive governments are only prepared to wave rhetorical fists at CASA, they should not be surprised when they are ignored. (It reminds of when the Treasurer huffs and puffs at the Banks about interests rates, and is comprehensively ignored.)

It may be that CASA employs the only people left in government with insight into the impenetrably complicated and extraordinarily esoteric technical issues relevant to aviation safety (the mystique of aviation, oooooooeerrrrr ….), but all those issues resolve to some fairly simply-stated risks and rewards and costs and options that even Ministers and Departmental Secretaries understand. If you want aerial ambulance services to meet X standard and there is no new investment in or subsidies for aircraft and aerodrome infrastructure, the reduction in available services will be Z and the estimated lives lost would be P. If you want aerial ambulance services to meet Z standard and there is no new investment in or subsidies of etc …. The cost of the new investment in or subsidies would be $v and $n respectively …. Now, do what you’re paid to do, and make and take responsibility for making a decision. (The decision: “Make everyone happy, quickly and for less cost.”)

I’ve been asked what my solution is. I’ve said it frequently: Elect independents. Australia needs lots, lots more like Nick Xenophon, so that the Federal government once again takes responsibility for governing.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 09:31
  #2129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 606
...the regulator contains the ‘brains trust’


If you are referring to the CASA numpties who appeared during the Senate Inquiry, then I don't think so!

Same would apply to the clowns who appeared for the ATSB, especially the Chief Commissioner.

Last edited by SIUYA; 22nd Jun 2013 at 10:11.
SIUYA is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 22:51
  #2130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Are you not diverted?

SIUYA – I wouldn't fret too much; the Reg reform boys and girls get a bit 'esoteric' at times, it's just the nature of the beast and it's all good gen, well meant. The Senate inquiry has only touched on reform, but the 'short' inquisition scheduled for 'Ron' should be entertaining. But the issues there are not the main focus of the latest report.

The way the Regs have been used and abused is much more germane– (my self indulgent Sunday word) to the proceedings. Said it before, until the Regs are supported by folk who can 'read' the intent, provide constant application and be trusted not to use any, or all combinations of 'parts cut off as needed' to suit their purpose, then we remain doomed. (Mind you, I'd love to listen to a 4 Dogs v Creamy debate on the subject, with suitable libations provided, it would be worth hearing).

It appears that the Senate have revealed just how deep the selective abuse of 'legal' power is entrenched. "Don't worry – do as I say, we'll bluff and bulldoze our way through": stuff the coroners, shag the courts, bugger the Senate and sod the 'ills of society'. It seems an accepted norm within the ranks of the CASA paymasters that CASA is the all seeing solution to a pagans prayer. Things like this:-.../

DF – Hansard: "In 2010 a review was done into the operations of those two agencies. Of the eight desired outcomes of that review, the committee found that actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against six of the main areas." etc.
then continues:-

DF – Hansard: "They failed to support the adoption of a systemic approach to aviation safety. They failed to promote and conduct ATSB independent no-blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assured a clear and publicly perceived distinction between each agency's complementary safety related objectives, as well as CASA's specialised enforcement related obligations; they also failed to avoid to the extent practicable any impediments in the performance of each other's functions. They also failed to acknowledge errors and to be committed in practice to seeking constant improvement. The committee made 26 recommendations to address a number of systemic deficiencies that were identified in both the investigative and regulatory processes but also in funding and reporting.
/...are starting to emerge as the iceberg slowly, but inevitably is revealed. Part of that which may return to haunt both CASA and ATSB has been exposed by the Mildura incident. Much of the first Senate inquiry, which kicked off this thread, was dismissed with a hearty 'White paper wave off'. That was a tactical error in two ways; one, it pissed off the Senators who were seeking to allay some serious, deep concerns; and, two; it high lighted the arrogant, dismissive culture which imagines and encourages the entrenched belief that only CASA can be divinely right, anointed by the gods, to be 'the' ultimate "Safety" authority. Furry muff, it's not quite what they are; however....

As long as the 'willing accomplice' exists and the evil, vindictive, protected species who abuse their power, trust and legislated remit are still swimming about at the shallow end of the gene pool, no amount of well intentioned, regulatory reform will matter.

Well, it is said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I say those who'd steal the pavers follow close behind. Check your 6, in the mirror.

Aye, it's all too much for a Sunday; Coffee and: will I have a blueberry muffin or a croissant ???....

Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Jun 2013 at 22:59. Reason: GD - I found your elephant story check Willyleaks.
Kharon is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 23:41
  #2131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
I beg to differ: failure to intervene and take (back) responsibility for the regulatory reform program is merely one manifestation of the ‘hands off/no responsibility’ approach that has resulted in the extraordinary revelations in the Senate Committee’s report on which you are focussing. The fix for one issue is the same for all.

If all governments are going to do is wave a rhetorical fist at CASA about the revelations of the report (or the regulatory reform program or whatever), CASA will continue to give governments the middle finger back. Why would it do anything else?

Only governments have the power to build, dismantle, redesign and rebuild regulatory authorities (and investigative agencies). Only governments.

And given the Laborials are now only concerned about getting and retaining power for power’s sake, they no longer have the corporate integrity or competence to do anything substantial.

Last edited by Creampuff; 22nd Jun 2013 at 23:42.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 00:26
  #2132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,470
I agree with Creampuff. Until the politicians decide to move, nothing can be done. Once the terrible state of CASA and ATSB becomes the subject of a Cabinet minute, anything and everything can be done, and quickly because the good folk at PM &C will supervise, and they are smart, fast, and don't take BS from anyone.


The goal of Mr. Mrdak and his department, CASA and ATSB is to remain underneath that radar.

Albanese doesn't care about aviation except so far as it provides opportunities for property deals and access to the Chairmans lounge. The Department will move mightily to try and maintain that laissez faire approach in a new Liberal Government.

My guess is that they will send a message that appointing a "troublemaker" like Sen. Fawcett will cause the government grief by distracting them from the main game, etc. etc. You know how it goes - make aviation reform a "second term priority" blah blah.

It remains to be seen what Abbott does, but I haven't got my hopes up.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 01:24
  #2133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Senate PelAir report recommendation 13!

Sunny you may well be right, but are you in agreement with recommendation 13?? Going off Creamy's recent posts he would be in agreement and apparently prepared to participate albeit through a friend:
"I'll urge a close friend to make a submission to the 'short inquiry' into the regulatory reform program."
Regulatory reform
6.56 The committee received information that there is concern in industry about the progress and direction of regulatory reform.54 It understands that this process has been going on for well over a decade55 and this extended timeframe is causing ongoing uncertainty for industry. The committee compares it with the regulatory reform process in New Zealand which has taken far less time and by all accounts has been effective.56

6.57 While a certain degree of concern is to be expected, the committee believes it is time to conduct a brief inquiry on the current status of regulatory reform to review the direction, progress and resources expended to date. This would include seeking perspectives from CASA and industry. It would also include benchmarking against the New Zealand reform process and outcomes, including industry acceptance.

Recommendation 13
6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.
Although Creamy you may not be in total agreement with some of the committees footnoted references:
55 See www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_92098 ;
www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_92107; Steve Creedy, 'Civil Aviation Safety Authority close on reform of rules', The Australian, 4 November 2011. The article notes that the new regulations may not be in place before the end of 2014; Emma Kelly, InFocus, 'Australia closes in on regulatory reform', 19 February 2013.
www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-australia-closes-in-on-regulatory-reform-382027/;
Paul Phelan, 'To hell with the rules', 6 April 2013, Pro Aviation
http://proaviation.com.au/?p=639 accessed (19 April 2013).
56 AMROBA, Submission 15, p. 1; Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Strategic Direction,October
Combine some of those quoted references with your 'RRP thread' (pick out the good bits) then write a concise executive summary and 'bingo' your submission will be done…can’t wait to link PPRuNe to it for a robust discussion!

Creamy:
I’ve been asked what my solution is. I’ve said it frequently: Elect independents. Australia needs lots, lots more like Nick Xenophon, so that the Federal government once again takes responsibility for governing.
I agree with your ‘above’ statement, although I’m not sure about independents in the lower house holding the balance of power. The current experiment with minority government IMHO hasn’t worked and has led to a government too busy pumping out ineffective, largely uncontested (87% uncontested apparently) volumes of legislation rushed through mostly without proper ‘due process’ followed.

More independents in the Senate…now that I would agree with and there are some indications that may well happen, although they won’t be in place till July next year.

On the matter of DF’s tabling speech I think you’re underestimating the good Senator. The speech says to me that the Senate Committee Senators are not letting this matter rest and are united in seeing that the recommendations will not be simply shelf-wared or white paper washed like last time.

It also indicates that DF hasn’t been white washed by his own party and if you refer to Senate Estimates Hansard 29/05/13 (scroll to Senator Fawcett), I also get the impression that the good Senator is joining the dots.

All the more reason that the Committee receives informative, objective submissions when the ‘short inquiry’ into RRP is called!

Ok that sort of covers R13..so well done Creamy

Phearless Phelan's cottoned onto DF's speech..

Senator Fawcett?s vision for the future ? opinion | Pro Aviation

Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Jun 2013 at 08:43.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 01:38
  #2134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Beggar it – I'm gonna bite, once.

Creamy, just for fun - I'll see your differ and raise you an agreement; I have no doubt that essentially at 'top drawer' level, all is as you say and the responsibility lays squarely with Gummint. I'm in ferocious agreement with you.

However, really, the likes of Albo, (the pollies polly), are not, not ever as long as their nether regions point at the earth's centre going to 'step up'. They will, righteously wheel in an 'expert donkey' to pin a tail on when it all goes south, give 'it' a fluffy white paper hat and say "crack on lads, time is money". Then sit back, in glorious isolation watching the fun in the arena from the safety of the chairman's lounge. That system (human nature) at least will never fail.

For mine, the essence of the problem lays within the CASA/ATSB 'culture'. How the system (whatever it is) gets used. The Gummint appointee sets the tone, gives sage, honest advice to the paymaster and manages the troops (honour, integrity and all that old school stuff). This has not been delivered by McComic or any of his 'orrible little men; and that is where I believe the problem lays. The deeper problems e.g. Pel Air are just not clearly seen, by ministers and mandarins, through the shiny, slippery covering of the 'watchdog's' bombproof, public edifice made safe by Safety.

The deep seated problems, exposed in part by Pel Air, exist within an encouraged, systematic methodology, which, without having need to regard accountability - to anyone, can pretty much do as it likes and fully expect to get away with it. The multiple, Teflon coated layers of protection afforded make it almost (but not quite) impossible to penetrate to the depths where the big rats are hidden. Someone, somehow needs to get a rope on the little buggers, make them accountable for the carnage and mess left behind. The minister and mandarins may completely believe that all is well, indeed they should be able to rely implicitly on it (what would they know anyway). But no matter, there are always those who will ensure that should the ministerial lobotomy fail, then blinkers, cotton wool and soothing potions will be administered. Should that fail, the old "well, the blood will be on your hands Minister" speech is dusted off and plugged into the deep sleep, subliminal message bank. The message - "Trust me minister, - I'll only just pop it in a little way, if you don't like, I'll just pop it out again".

But most of all, no matter who does it, or how it is achieved: whether by divine intervention, a public flogging or just simply through 'someone' who'll do the job properly and expect at least some integrity from the 'minions'. Keep them honest; Pel Air wasn't honest; Quadrio wasn't honest; Barrier cannot be honest; Canley Vale won't be honest; Senate inquiry bloody nearly wasn't honest. Let's at least have a semblance of honesty, service and assistance to the aviation community which relies quite heavily on and pays dearly for the 'expert' administrative unit we and the rest of the planet, laughingly refer to as "the" safety authority.

Steam off - Sheepish grin – exeunt, stage left. Now where's my muffin gone; bloody dog. ...

Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Jun 2013 at 01:53. Reason: Nope, GD's elephant got the muffin. Some days, you know.
Kharon is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 04:39
  #2135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 45
A Skull, A Beaker and Dr Death

The reason that CASA and ATSB has self imploded is due primarily to Dr Voodoo Aleck, 20plus years of lies, deceit and dishonesty. Along with others including Boyd and Terry from the West they have tricked and conned the Minister, the Ministers bum boy Mrdak and the public. Add into the mix one JMac, Campbell, and a host of other parasites including all of Bankstown as well as most of Sydney and you have a system beyond repair.
The three ATSB Comissioners are deadwood and out of their league, and there are other hidden agendas that have taken place that breach the TSI.

Crooks Crooks Crooks
CASAweary is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 05:34
  #2136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Holy cow. I just started reading the media sites, and thought this one Ben had done was about the Hume freeway being finished, which is important out here.

Hume freeway fixed, but air safety broken | Plane Talking

Well no. It is about Pel-Air.
Highway accidents kill mainly in single figures and even today they quickly mount up, even thought the public is largely desensitized to the road toll until for example, a logistics company which flouts the laws on fatigue, rostering and drugs in the work place, lets one of its drivers smash head on into a private car, even on a dual carriageway, wiping out a family.


But airline crashes , although exceedingly rare, often kill hundreds of people at once.


Albanese has on his insanely overburdened desk a Senate Committee report into the conduct of the ‘independent’ air safety investigator, the ATSB, and the air safety regulator, CASA which without dissent across party and independent lines, makes grave and fully annotated and supported findings concerning their integrity and competency.


Albanese would also be mindful of Australia’s international reputation for getting air safety right, and no doubt horrified if he could spare the time to consider this report.


He appears however to have relied on public servants to advise him about matters concerning other public servants who have admitted in testimony and examination before the committee to various actions or omissions in carrying out their responsibilities in relation to the crash of a Pel-Air Westwind corporate jet performing an air ambulance role into the sea near Norfolk Island in 2009.


The accident is one thing. But the deliberate actions of CASA in withholding from the ATSB an internal audit which finds CASA failed in its duties in relation to Pel-Air to an extent which could have prevented the accident happening are another thing, and tell us, and the international air safety community, that the administration of air safety in this country is rotten.
The annotated and fully supported findings of the Senate committee also explain why the members lost confidence in the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.


The ATSB report does not in fact fulfill its obligations to improve air safety because even though it inquired into the first ever ditching of a Westwind corporate jet, it makes no findings or recommendations following the discovery that none of the safety equipment or required procedures on board the flight worked.


It ignores the fact that the jet was flown without the operator having an adequate fuel policy for its pilots to follow, and appears to have been deliberately framed to avoid considering the unsuitability of the jet concerned to have ever been flown on the inter-island route it was following.


The minister would also, as a passionate believer in the rights and work place protections of individuals, no doubt be appalled at the full and concerted apparatus of the public administration of the ATSB and CASA being brought to bear on the captain of the flight to frame him entirely for the responsibility for the accident to the exclusion of a substantial body of improperly suppressed evidence on serious failings in the operator Pel-Air and the regulator CASA.
Minister, this is about fairness and equity, as well as about Australia’s international air safety reputation and the integrity and competency of the ATSB and CASA.


The report needs to be redone. Dolan needs to be fired. Both bodies need a complete shake-up, and the risk these two bodies pose to the proper administration of air safety in this country needs to be reduced through urgent but effective intervention.
denabol is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 05:43
  #2137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Message from Gobbledock

Friends of Safety,

I received a message from Gobbledock this morning. It would seem that he has been rather busy in Montreal. He asked me to pass on that he is doing fine, was not adversely affected in the recent floods and he has been busy teaching ICAO staff how to 'nude conga', play 'nude twister' and incredibly persuaded them to all now wear blue ties. Also he has been busy doing what CAsA and ATSB can't do - lift the veil on the mystique of aviation and produce something tangible. Indeed, while CAsA adopt a monolithic approach to safety and do their utmost to dine from troughs, engage in hypothetical banter while tautologically proclaiming advancement in the reg reform program, Gobbles assisted ICAO in producing Annexure 19 on safety management. Gobbles advises me that there is 'something old, something new, something bold, something that is not pooh', im the annexe and it is worth taking a look at the below link;

Safety Management

Considering the new annexe also contains requirements for the state and its SSP obligations, Gobbles advises that it is likely that there will be many business class trips coming up to Montreal for Fort Fumbles supposedly elite safety experts, namely the Skull, Boyd, Aleck, Farkwitson and other important CAsA dignatories, so Finance had better get all those cab receipts in order and LSD had better ensure no 'paperwork' gets lost in the system, you know how fragile these things can be!

Also, I believe Mini will be heading to Montreal for a spell, and Gobbles says he looks forward to working closely with the CAsA team in Maple Land. He has extended a personal invite for all to stay at his own sleepy hollow, a lake cabin at Lake Louise, and he hopes Flyingfiend can come along also.

P.S Great to see Casaweary is back, hopefully this time it will be for a little longer, provided he still isn't running the Fed Police gauntlet? Flyingfiend can you please confirm whether Casaweary is allowed back outside to play for a while?

Last edited by 004wercras; 23rd Jun 2013 at 05:46.
004wercras is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 17:04
  #2138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
It is time to more accurately re-name what has been loosely called the Reg Reform program.

Whatever is being produced is change, but it is certainly not "reform" --- unless you thing change and reform are interchangeable descriptions.

Notions of "reform" generally carry the expectation of better, or improved or generally the idea that reform will improve things.

Hands up anybody who thinks recent CASA changes (like making even the most minor administrative error --- that should not be criminal offences in the first place -- all 50 penalty points --- $8500 --- so the maximum administrative fine can be $1700) are an improvement.

So, what are we going to call what CASA is now doing, when we put our submissions in to the Reg. Reform Senate inquiry that the good Senator Fawcett has promoted.

Tootle pip!!

Last edited by LeadSled; 23rd Jun 2013 at 17:08.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 21:41
  #2139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Herr Leadie, i can think of a lot of things to call the current quarter of a century failure, however 'The Regulatory Deformed Program' comes to mind.
004wercras is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 22:36
  #2140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
So, what are we going to call what CASA is now doing, when we put our submissions in to the Reg. Reform Senate inquiry that the good Senator Fawcett has promoted.
Frankenstein?

Running sore?

Trainwreck?

Obscenely expensive journey in circles?

The blind leading the deaf leading the ignorant?

Let’s wait to see how much noise “the good Senator Fawcett” makes in government. His “solution” to aerial ambulance standards is a true-to-form Laborial abrogation of responsibility: CASA and industry should get together and have a group hug.

That’s worked well so far, hasn’t it?

And there’s a gaping hole in the suggestion. I’d be interested in knowing how much confidence someone like Ziggychick would have in a process in which CASA consults with – let’s choose an eminent representative of the aviation ‘industry’ – John Sharp, to ‘sort out’ aerial ambulance standards. Maybe the public might have a view as well?

Oh I forgot – in aerial work the POB are all ‘participants’, so they ‘understand and accept’ all the risks.
Creampuff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.