Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monday - mixinup metaphors.
You know Creamy, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the Senators are publicly doing all the right things; I mean why would you waste a public media session on the small beer of aviation. There's comrade Sunny, like most folk stepping onto an aircraft with a reasonable assurance of arriving at their selected destination, this is as it should be. The aircraft is as fit as our top class engineers can make it, the flight crew are competent, operating in benign weather conditions over a land mass which is relatively flat. The smoking hole argument, for the punters is almost nugatory. So why waste air time and why not use that time to make sure that 'you' get elected ?, it is important we elect the right people. A minister who actually gave a toss about industry and would support the independent, non in house groomed and selected DAS would be a nice change.
Someone to plug up the smoking holes for industry; decreased or capped administrative costs, a reduction in regulatory purgatory, decriminalisation of non safety issues and the instant removal of the obscene, ludicrous 'strict liability' option. Someone to enforce the law – innocent until proven guilty - in court; transparent due process and to destroy, forever the horrendous, double jeopardy of the AAT system, currently providing an administrative life support system for piss-potical whimsy in place of solid evidence, facts and proof.
A new system of regulation would be a fine thing to have, but until the open slather of half baked, subjective opinion is removed, there is no point to bringing in nice shiny new rules. Until some of the inutile rubbish, masquerading as "expert" anything, except as pencil sharpeners, is put back into the stationary cupboard, where it belongs the new broom will not clean out the dark corners. CASA needs to be slapped into it's proper place, taught some manners, humility and probably how to do it's bloody job properly, that's working with industry expertise to achieve a superior system, instead of poncing about the place annoying the crap out everybody. Hells bells, we pay them enough for it.
None of which make any difference to the punter except yet another fare increase and perhaps, one Tim Tam instead of two; except should another 'systematic' failure bring about the unthinkable.
Aye well, those of the public who have never been touched do have short memories; regrettably, those newly touched by an aviation tragedy soon arrive at the same conclusions as their predecessors. Ask them, they'll tell you. 004 has the right of it, sighting the disgraceful "Erebus" aftermath.
Anyway – enough: I just hope Fawcett gets re elected becomes junior minister and the gummint is smart enough to allow him the decision on who will be DAS and the discretion to dictate the course for CASA, ASA and ATSB reform, for they have surely lost their way.
Oh, I feel better now, getting that lot off my chest. I really do.
Someone to plug up the smoking holes for industry; decreased or capped administrative costs, a reduction in regulatory purgatory, decriminalisation of non safety issues and the instant removal of the obscene, ludicrous 'strict liability' option. Someone to enforce the law – innocent until proven guilty - in court; transparent due process and to destroy, forever the horrendous, double jeopardy of the AAT system, currently providing an administrative life support system for piss-potical whimsy in place of solid evidence, facts and proof.
A new system of regulation would be a fine thing to have, but until the open slather of half baked, subjective opinion is removed, there is no point to bringing in nice shiny new rules. Until some of the inutile rubbish, masquerading as "expert" anything, except as pencil sharpeners, is put back into the stationary cupboard, where it belongs the new broom will not clean out the dark corners. CASA needs to be slapped into it's proper place, taught some manners, humility and probably how to do it's bloody job properly, that's working with industry expertise to achieve a superior system, instead of poncing about the place annoying the crap out everybody. Hells bells, we pay them enough for it.
None of which make any difference to the punter except yet another fare increase and perhaps, one Tim Tam instead of two; except should another 'systematic' failure bring about the unthinkable.
Aye well, those of the public who have never been touched do have short memories; regrettably, those newly touched by an aviation tragedy soon arrive at the same conclusions as their predecessors. Ask them, they'll tell you. 004 has the right of it, sighting the disgraceful "Erebus" aftermath.
Anyway – enough: I just hope Fawcett gets re elected becomes junior minister and the gummint is smart enough to allow him the decision on who will be DAS and the discretion to dictate the course for CASA, ASA and ATSB reform, for they have surely lost their way.
Oh, I feel better now, getting that lot off my chest. I really do.
Last edited by Kharon; 9th Jun 2013 at 22:38. Reason: Perhaps mixin my toesis, not t'other one. Argh, WGAT.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Islands
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw the relevant minister and senators on the news. No mention of this accident, only who is going to take over from the PM
How is Ziggychick going, can't see any postings from her, maybe she has changed her mind about who to believe.
How is Ziggychick going, can't see any postings from her, maybe she has changed her mind about who to believe.
Last edited by FONC; 9th Jun 2013 at 23:38.
not one syllable uttered about aviation safety or accident investigation
Sadly I think the "benign weather, flat terrain" argument is one of our greatest threats. Airlines and the politicians who work for them (
) would love to use that as evidence supporting the current rationalising of our safety bodies.
But you are right, the punters just want cheap fares. As long as our memories are long enough to finger those who had the opportunity to reverse the trend and chose not to, then so be it. The guys and girls at the pointy end will continue to be the last line of defence as always.
) would love to use that as evidence supporting the current rationalising of our safety bodies. But you are right, the punters just want cheap fares. As long as our memories are long enough to finger those who had the opportunity to reverse the trend and chose not to, then so be it. The guys and girls at the pointy end will continue to be the last line of defence as always.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading back through many of these threads, and probably stating the obvious, it is very apparent that a complete disconnect between industry and regulator has occured...... or was it ever so?
In America, their regulator rose from civilian roots, ours rose through the military. Is this why the culture of ignoring industry needs and advice became entrenched? "you will follow orders" no questions!!
Once, long ago, Australia was an innovator in things aviation, yet no real industry developed here. Many of our innovations were taken by others and developed. Some of those are still in use today, reaping millions of dollars for someone elses economy. Why not ours?
Was it because they were regulated out of business here before the business even began?
The UK was once a world leader in things aviation. Their regulator rose from the same roots as ours. Where is their aviation industry today?
Could it be that without "Foster and promote" included in a regulators brief there is very little hope that innovation and development can exist?
I have trouble trying to figure out exactly why this is so, what are the regulators motives for its actions? Some here contend it is mearly following government "Policy". So then the question becomes is it really government "policy" that its regulator should suppress an industry that contributes to the economy? if this is so, Why?
Is it simply a misinterpretation of what government policy actually is?
Or a more sinister reason that because a lack understanding of how the industry works, leads politicians to accept whatever "policy" the regulator puts before them?
It is apparent from these threads that the regulator totally ignores the experience, qualifications and know how that exist within industry, in fact from the top down this expertise is held in contempt, just look at the DAS's performance at industry meetings as an illustration.
Why is this so? From a "Safety management" point of view is this a healthy state of affairs? To ignore the untapped wealth of expertise that resides within industry and the rest of the world?
Does our regulator believe it has a monopoly on safety management and knowledge? Or are they conditioned by their management "System" in that belief? Their front line troops certainly display this level of arrogance, then again they receive precious little in the way of training, which maybe explains why their only recourse when confronted with their own incompetence, is to resort to bullying and threats. Like the incompetent military commander they are perfectly prepared to force those they control into annihilation rather than admit they dont know what they are doing.
The DAS disparages our neighbour’s reforms, describing them as "basket cases" in denial of the facts, hopefully as time goes by and their aviation industries thrive and ours declines politicians will start asking Why? and as our industry gets further out of step with the rest of the world their regulators will begin to ask is Australia a safe place for their operators to aviate into and our aviators to operate out of.
If, as many tell us on this thread, it is a waste of time lobbying our government we should be directing our efforts to convincing other governments that Australia is becoming an unsafe place for their aviators to be operating in.
In America, their regulator rose from civilian roots, ours rose through the military. Is this why the culture of ignoring industry needs and advice became entrenched? "you will follow orders" no questions!!
Once, long ago, Australia was an innovator in things aviation, yet no real industry developed here. Many of our innovations were taken by others and developed. Some of those are still in use today, reaping millions of dollars for someone elses economy. Why not ours?
Was it because they were regulated out of business here before the business even began?
The UK was once a world leader in things aviation. Their regulator rose from the same roots as ours. Where is their aviation industry today?
Could it be that without "Foster and promote" included in a regulators brief there is very little hope that innovation and development can exist?
I have trouble trying to figure out exactly why this is so, what are the regulators motives for its actions? Some here contend it is mearly following government "Policy". So then the question becomes is it really government "policy" that its regulator should suppress an industry that contributes to the economy? if this is so, Why?
Is it simply a misinterpretation of what government policy actually is?
Or a more sinister reason that because a lack understanding of how the industry works, leads politicians to accept whatever "policy" the regulator puts before them?
It is apparent from these threads that the regulator totally ignores the experience, qualifications and know how that exist within industry, in fact from the top down this expertise is held in contempt, just look at the DAS's performance at industry meetings as an illustration.
Why is this so? From a "Safety management" point of view is this a healthy state of affairs? To ignore the untapped wealth of expertise that resides within industry and the rest of the world?
Does our regulator believe it has a monopoly on safety management and knowledge? Or are they conditioned by their management "System" in that belief? Their front line troops certainly display this level of arrogance, then again they receive precious little in the way of training, which maybe explains why their only recourse when confronted with their own incompetence, is to resort to bullying and threats. Like the incompetent military commander they are perfectly prepared to force those they control into annihilation rather than admit they dont know what they are doing.
The DAS disparages our neighbour’s reforms, describing them as "basket cases" in denial of the facts, hopefully as time goes by and their aviation industries thrive and ours declines politicians will start asking Why? and as our industry gets further out of step with the rest of the world their regulators will begin to ask is Australia a safe place for their operators to aviate into and our aviators to operate out of.
If, as many tell us on this thread, it is a waste of time lobbying our government we should be directing our efforts to convincing other governments that Australia is becoming an unsafe place for their aviators to be operating in.
Last edited by thorn bird; 10th Jun 2013 at 05:49.
Their (the UK) regulator rose from the same roots as ours.
Until it was subsumed into the then new CAA, the ARB Ltd. was an independent body setting airworthiness standards. In the G.O.Ds, the RAC did all the flight testing short of the CPL, GAPAN did all the GA instructor training and testing.
In my view, the military influence in the UK was/is less than here. Government policies in the UK, monopoly Government owned airlines, central government planning, whether the industry was nationalized of not, all played major parts in the downfall of UK manufacturing, post WW11, and a major Labour antipathy to private enterprise also played its part, a very big part, prior to Thatcher.
Although UK CAA can be difficult to work with at times (particularly in the JAA/EASA era) I have never found the same level of outright obstruction and hostility as is a common experience in dealing with CASA, and I certainly have not found the outright incompetence of operational staff, as is also common in CASA.
CAA UK have always attracted a fair proportion of experienced and qualified staff, compared to CASA in recent years. I find myself dealing with peers.
On the subject of "promote and foster" (long since removed from the remit of the FAA) the following is of note:
To further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services (s. 4 (1) Civil Aviation Act 1982) (UK).
Quite apart from the individual problems of CASA staff, perhaps the biggest single problem is the "risk averse to the extreme" culture that grew in the old CAA/AU and has amplified in CASA/AU.
We all know the difficulties of getting decisions out of CASA, because saying NO! is always easier, with fewer potential repercussions than saying YES. Saying Yes means making a decision, with the potential risks and repercussions.
This is probably the core reason for the ridiculously protracted nonsense that goes on with issuing almost any kind of approval. ( Sorry, "permission" --- as CASA emphasizes your position in the "command and control" structure)
As those of us who work with them know, Mr. McCormick, in my opinion, completely misrepresents the situation in NZ.
The "basket case" comment in a Government inquiry referred to some individuals, and that report made NO REFERENCE AT ALL to the NZ Act and Regulations being a basket case. In fact, it made no significant reference to the NZ Act and Regulations, at all.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Jun 2013 at 05:40.
Thorn Bird,
The Singapore regulations are plain language, simple, understandable, pragmatic, and ICAO compliant without filing thousands of differences. I have only limited experience of working with CAAS, but have found them straightforward, and “interpretations” of the regs. have never been an issue.
A good starting point for the NZ regs, and why they work is the Act, S.14:
In my view, the above is a better approach to making things work, than the now extinct FAA “promote and foster”, because it putting responsibility where responsibility sits, with the Parliament directing the Minister in his or her duties.
The NZ regs. can be characterised as the FARs cleaned up and modernised, with a bit of JAA/EASA influence, particularly in areas where the (then) FAR/JAR harmonisation program was/is producing results in continuing airworthiness areas.
They are plain language as a you and I would understand plain language, not “legal” plain language, as interpreted by the Parliamentary drafters in Canberra.
As far as I can see, there are no strict liability offenses that should not be strict liability, and the way the regulations are set out, they don’t throw “the offense” in your face with every regulation.
They are written for the information of participants in the aviation sector, not for the safe prosecution of those participants.
The NZ regulations are ICAO compliant without filing thousands of differences. ICAO and FAA audits of NZ have not thrown up adverse reports, like multiple ICAO and FAA audits of CASA.
The best judgement that can be delivered on the NZ rules, is the number of countries that have taken them up, or are in the process of so doing, we all know about PNG, but the “NZ Rules” have been taken up by a some of the CIS states, and, as I recall, in some of the Caribbean states. Bermuda was also considering the NZ rules, but I don’t know the outcome, as they were under a lot of pressure to harmonise with EASA.
Prior to the complete shakeup of the NZ CAA in the 1990s, which included the new rules set, CAA/NZ was just as difficult to deal with as CASA, but the transformation has made the organisation easy to deal with --- and they have performance standards for turnaround of application which they meet. For example, if you have all your documents up to speed, which is easy under the NZ system, a HCap. Transport AOC will take about 90 days.
Can anybody remember CASA turning around any new AOC application for anything more than airport dog catcher in 90 days. You are doing well if you can get an Ops. Manual amendment "accepted" in that time.
As many of you will recall, and Australian financed program in PNG found the Australian regulations no longer useable, so we, the Australian taxpayers paid Australians (headed by a former head of CAA/AU to put the NZ rules in place in PNG --- and they work well.
That just about says it all about the NZ regs., I do wonder if Mr. McCormick actually knows anything about NZ, or is he just parroting the partly line he has been served up??
Tootle pip!!
The Singapore regulations are plain language, simple, understandable, pragmatic, and ICAO compliant without filing thousands of differences. I have only limited experience of working with CAAS, but have found them straightforward, and “interpretations” of the regs. have never been an issue.
A good starting point for the NZ regs, and why they work is the Act, S.14:
14 Objectives of Minister
- The objectives of the Minister under this Act are—
- (a) to undertake the Minister's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system; and
- (b) to ensure that New Zealand's obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.
The NZ regs. can be characterised as the FARs cleaned up and modernised, with a bit of JAA/EASA influence, particularly in areas where the (then) FAR/JAR harmonisation program was/is producing results in continuing airworthiness areas.
They are plain language as a you and I would understand plain language, not “legal” plain language, as interpreted by the Parliamentary drafters in Canberra.
As far as I can see, there are no strict liability offenses that should not be strict liability, and the way the regulations are set out, they don’t throw “the offense” in your face with every regulation.
They are written for the information of participants in the aviation sector, not for the safe prosecution of those participants.
The NZ regulations are ICAO compliant without filing thousands of differences. ICAO and FAA audits of NZ have not thrown up adverse reports, like multiple ICAO and FAA audits of CASA.
The best judgement that can be delivered on the NZ rules, is the number of countries that have taken them up, or are in the process of so doing, we all know about PNG, but the “NZ Rules” have been taken up by a some of the CIS states, and, as I recall, in some of the Caribbean states. Bermuda was also considering the NZ rules, but I don’t know the outcome, as they were under a lot of pressure to harmonise with EASA.
Prior to the complete shakeup of the NZ CAA in the 1990s, which included the new rules set, CAA/NZ was just as difficult to deal with as CASA, but the transformation has made the organisation easy to deal with --- and they have performance standards for turnaround of application which they meet. For example, if you have all your documents up to speed, which is easy under the NZ system, a HCap. Transport AOC will take about 90 days.
Can anybody remember CASA turning around any new AOC application for anything more than airport dog catcher in 90 days. You are doing well if you can get an Ops. Manual amendment "accepted" in that time.
As many of you will recall, and Australian financed program in PNG found the Australian regulations no longer useable, so we, the Australian taxpayers paid Australians (headed by a former head of CAA/AU to put the NZ rules in place in PNG --- and they work well.
That just about says it all about the NZ regs., I do wonder if Mr. McCormick actually knows anything about NZ, or is he just parroting the partly line he has been served up??
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Jun 2013 at 09:02.
Can anybody remember CASA turning around any new AOC application for anything more than airport dog catcher in 90 days. You are doing well if you can get an Ops. Manual amendment "accepted" in that time.
But I suspect that, as usual, you are making it up Leadsled.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie, agreed. CAA NZ and the Singaporeans rule sets are quite good. I reckon they would probably sufficiently cover 90% of our requirements down under. Which is better than the present ****e we have.
Our problem in AUS is twofold. The 'iron ring' has used the regs, legislation and the law as a personal play thing, to be meddled with and fiddled with more than they do with their small undersize shlongs. The second reason is paranoia. The paranoia of being accountable. So make the rules so grey, so confusing, so unworkable that when things do go wrong the CAsA and Australian government can escape accountability each time, they can manipulate the 'intent' to suit themselves and flick the blame back on all and sundry, anybody but themselves.
It is a well orchestrated and conducted game of throwing the blame.
My question to people like ICAO, and more so the FAA is this - Are you all willing to allow the CAsA game to continue, knowing that their obsfucation, incompetence and arrogance could, as has happened in the past, contribute to a serious incident or accident? You see that is the bigger picture here. All the carrying on's have the potential to put an international operator at risk, not only in this country but in their own. Again I ask, are they really prepared to accept this ongoing risk?
I do however disagree on one point Leadie. A new AOC, general rule of thumb takes a minimum of 12 months to implement properly. Just a wee example, remember AN introducing the 747 a/c type? They did it in 4 months, and it was a major f#ck up which resulted in VH-INH's nose sitting on the deck at SYD APT.
VA tried to introduce the A330 onto the AOC with an original audacious plan of around 6 months. It didn't happen. It blew out to a more respectful 13 months approximately, after numerous implementation issues.
90 days? Hmmmm. Not so sure, if it is correct then the operator applying must be pretty switched on, and the Regulator certainly not a lazy ass shelfware organisation. Indeed they must truly have their pot plants in a row
Our problem in AUS is twofold. The 'iron ring' has used the regs, legislation and the law as a personal play thing, to be meddled with and fiddled with more than they do with their small undersize shlongs. The second reason is paranoia. The paranoia of being accountable. So make the rules so grey, so confusing, so unworkable that when things do go wrong the CAsA and Australian government can escape accountability each time, they can manipulate the 'intent' to suit themselves and flick the blame back on all and sundry, anybody but themselves.
It is a well orchestrated and conducted game of throwing the blame.
My question to people like ICAO, and more so the FAA is this - Are you all willing to allow the CAsA game to continue, knowing that their obsfucation, incompetence and arrogance could, as has happened in the past, contribute to a serious incident or accident? You see that is the bigger picture here. All the carrying on's have the potential to put an international operator at risk, not only in this country but in their own. Again I ask, are they really prepared to accept this ongoing risk?
I do however disagree on one point Leadie. A new AOC, general rule of thumb takes a minimum of 12 months to implement properly. Just a wee example, remember AN introducing the 747 a/c type? They did it in 4 months, and it was a major f#ck up which resulted in VH-INH's nose sitting on the deck at SYD APT.
VA tried to introduce the A330 onto the AOC with an original audacious plan of around 6 months. It didn't happen. It blew out to a more respectful 13 months approximately, after numerous implementation issues.
90 days? Hmmmm. Not so sure, if it is correct then the operator applying must be pretty switched on, and the Regulator certainly not a lazy ass shelfware organisation. Indeed they must truly have their pot plants in a row
Last edited by 004wercras; 10th Jun 2013 at 11:10.
But I suspect that, as usual, you are making it up Leadsled
You are the lawyer, I didn't say anything about RPT.
I said HiCap Transport. And I did have the caveat that you had all your paperwork together --- which, under the NZ system, is far easier than CASA AU. How do they do it? By not having the answers to the Compliance Statement and the contents of the Exposition subject to the whims of individual inspectors, something that has reached a ridiculous state here. And the quote is usually accurate, very unlike CASA AU.
I really don't care what you believe, I am simply quoting from my personal experience.
which resulted in VH-INH's nose sitting on the deck at SYD APT.
That accident had absolutely nothing to do with any "rushed" introduction of the B747 Classic into Ansett, the Captain was highly experienced on the aircraft, but, in my opinion made an error of judgement which resulted in a rushed approach -- so rushed they landed over max. landing weight.
And that is where the buck stops --- he knew, just as any of us who have been on Classics, about the pilot panel gear indication, versus the and-and/and-or logic indications on the F/E panel. You didn't even need a checklist to work that one out. He didn't check. I suggest you read the ATSB ( or was it BASI then) report.
---- if it is correct then the operator applying must be pretty switched on,
There is simply no point in quoting time in Australia, and suggesting they are reasonable, they have always been beyond the Pale.
It is some years ago now, and in the UK, but getting a new type large 4-engine jet on a Public Transport AOC took us (the airline I was working for at the time) a few days over four months --- and that included getting the CAA Inspector endorsed on the aircraft type.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Jun 2013 at 15:38.
They are written for the information of participants in the aviation sector, not for the safe prosecution of those participants.
I have seen the length of time from AOC application to issue to be as long as 18 months. These were not complicated, one was for a light twin and the other for a R22.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now add insult to injury.
Well, seems at least one part of the Australian 'free press' has not succumbed to Albo's sleeping potion. You need to read this:- Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking.
These 'spin' people seem to assume everyone's a thick as they are. "OI, most here can read big words and do joined up writing and everything". The international shame of the Pel Air inquiry now compounded by platitudes and worse yet, these halfwits fully expect that everyone's going to swallow it. Bloody disgusting, hypocritical drivel. I'm off to fund anyone researching anti-vomit medication.....
....
....
These 'spin' people seem to assume everyone's a thick as they are. "OI, most here can read big words and do joined up writing and everything". The international shame of the Pel Air inquiry now compounded by platitudes and worse yet, these halfwits fully expect that everyone's going to swallow it. Bloody disgusting, hypocritical drivel. I'm off to fund anyone researching anti-vomit medication.....
........
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Jun 2013 at 02:46.
Ben's piece in full!
Kharon:
Yep Ben sure doesn't hold back, worth regurgitating (sorry "K") in full:
And a little birdy is chirping away 'here'.
Well, seems at least one part of the Australian 'free press' has not succumbed to Albo's sleeping potion. You need to read this:- Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking.
) in full:
ATSB statement on safety info sharing with CASA is a sham
The ATSB, Australia’s disgraced and compromised air safety investigator, has issued a ‘policy’ statement on safety incident information sharing.
By way of context, this statement is not directly linked to the controversy surrounding its final report into the crash of a Pel-Air jet near Norfolk Island in 2009. It is, as it indicates in a shorthand manner, a response to ‘feedback’, read concern about breaches of privacy and the risks of retribution faced by airline employees or other interested parties who disclose safety concerns to the ATSB expecting their confidentiality to be respected.
However the policy statement is full of weasel words in relation to how the ATSB is supposed to work with CASA , and comes out at a time when neither the government nor opposition mind is likely to be on the matters uncovered by a recent scathing Senate inquiry into the ATSB’s final report into the Pel-Air crash.
The highlights of that report can be read here, and downloaded in full here.
The policy statement posted today by the ATSB contains this passage in relation to information sharing with CASA, the safety regulator.
“Image link” http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/06/11/atsb-statement-on-safety-info-with-casa-sharing-is-a-sham/atsb-and-casa-and-tsi/
In fact the Senate inquiry established with great detail the withholding of critical information in relation to the Pel-Air crash by CASA from the ATSB concerning internal findings of its own incompetent oversight of Pel-Air, and the unsafe state of operations at Pel-Air at the time of the crash.
The Senate referred this matter directly to the Australian Federal Police. Cynics may doubt that the AFP has the capacity to make adverse findings against the federal bureaucracy, but we will see. The facts are quite damning, and will not go away.
The ATSB report into the Pel-Air crash is severely deficient, and unfair, and consciously avoids discharging the ATSB’s reponsibility to inform the wider industry globally of matters such as the complete failure of the safety equipment on board the jet.
The report needs to be withdrawn and redone, in a manner that is fair, transparent and in accordance with Australia’s international obligations to air safety, rather than any obligations the ATSB might feel to CASA not to draw attention to its serious internal failings.
The ATSB, Australia’s disgraced and compromised air safety investigator, has issued a ‘policy’ statement on safety incident information sharing.
By way of context, this statement is not directly linked to the controversy surrounding its final report into the crash of a Pel-Air jet near Norfolk Island in 2009. It is, as it indicates in a shorthand manner, a response to ‘feedback’, read concern about breaches of privacy and the risks of retribution faced by airline employees or other interested parties who disclose safety concerns to the ATSB expecting their confidentiality to be respected.
However the policy statement is full of weasel words in relation to how the ATSB is supposed to work with CASA , and comes out at a time when neither the government nor opposition mind is likely to be on the matters uncovered by a recent scathing Senate inquiry into the ATSB’s final report into the Pel-Air crash.
The highlights of that report can be read here, and downloaded in full here.
The policy statement posted today by the ATSB contains this passage in relation to information sharing with CASA, the safety regulator.
“Image link” http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/06/11/atsb-statement-on-safety-info-with-casa-sharing-is-a-sham/atsb-and-casa-and-tsi/
In fact the Senate inquiry established with great detail the withholding of critical information in relation to the Pel-Air crash by CASA from the ATSB concerning internal findings of its own incompetent oversight of Pel-Air, and the unsafe state of operations at Pel-Air at the time of the crash.
The Senate referred this matter directly to the Australian Federal Police. Cynics may doubt that the AFP has the capacity to make adverse findings against the federal bureaucracy, but we will see. The facts are quite damning, and will not go away.
The ATSB report into the Pel-Air crash is severely deficient, and unfair, and consciously avoids discharging the ATSB’s reponsibility to inform the wider industry globally of matters such as the complete failure of the safety equipment on board the jet.
The report needs to be withdrawn and redone, in a manner that is fair, transparent and in accordance with Australia’s international obligations to air safety, rather than any obligations the ATSB might feel to CASA not to draw attention to its serious internal failings.
Guess whose rules say this:
(1) If any provision of this Order or of any regulations made thereunder is contravened in relation to an aircraft, the operator of that aircraft and the pilot-in-command thereof, if the operator or, as the case may be, the pilot-in-command is not the person who contravened that provision shall (without prejudice to the liability of any other person under this Order for that contravention) be deemed for the purposes of the following provisions of this paragraph to have contravened that provision unless he proves that the contravention occurred without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention. [ Simple? No. And it smells like strict liability …. ]
(2) If it is proved that an act or omission of any person which would otherwise have been a contravention by that person of a provision of this Order or of any regulations made thereunder was due to any cause not avoidable by the exercise of reasonable care by that person the act or omission shall be deemed not to be a contravention by that person of that provision.
(3) Where a person is charged with contravening a provision of this Order or any regulations made thereunder by reason of his having been a member of the flight crew of an aircraft on a flight for the purpose of public transport or aerial work the flight shall be treated (without prejudice to the liability of any other person under this Order) as not having been for that purpose if he proves that he neither knew nor had reason to know that the flight was for that purpose. [ Simple? Not really. And it smells like reversal of the onus of proof…. ]
(4) If any person contravenes any provision of this Order, or of any regulations made thereunder, not being a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (5) or (6) he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction for the like offence to a fine not exceeding $20,000.
(5) If any person contravenes any provision specified in Part A of the Thirteenth Schedule he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction for the like offence to a fine not exceeding $40,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 months or to both.
(6) If any person contravenes any provision specified in Part B of the Thirteenth Schedule he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
(2) If it is proved that an act or omission of any person which would otherwise have been a contravention by that person of a provision of this Order or of any regulations made thereunder was due to any cause not avoidable by the exercise of reasonable care by that person the act or omission shall be deemed not to be a contravention by that person of that provision.
(3) Where a person is charged with contravening a provision of this Order or any regulations made thereunder by reason of his having been a member of the flight crew of an aircraft on a flight for the purpose of public transport or aerial work the flight shall be treated (without prejudice to the liability of any other person under this Order) as not having been for that purpose if he proves that he neither knew nor had reason to know that the flight was for that purpose. [ Simple? Not really. And it smells like reversal of the onus of proof…. ]
(4) If any person contravenes any provision of this Order, or of any regulations made thereunder, not being a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (5) or (6) he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction for the like offence to a fine not exceeding $20,000.
(5) If any person contravenes any provision specified in Part A of the Thirteenth Schedule he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction for the like offence to a fine not exceeding $40,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 months or to both.
(6) If any person contravenes any provision specified in Part B of the Thirteenth Schedule he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
Nah....!
It wont happen.
Our Dear Leader McComic has had a chat/s with the AFP in years past, to advise that serious criminality by CAsA staff is but " a joke, and trivial "
Not to worry AFP chappies, ..all will be dealt with by the (No)Ethics and (Mis)Conduct committee...one of McComic's brilliant diversonary tactics to lower the bar to side step criminality for just Admin penalties.
Of course there was an external investigation contracted out .."to make it fairer to the staff" (sic)..because the ICC's result wasnt to the liking.
Unfortunately the external guy found the same...AFP needed.
Never mind the pot plants and the taxi fares, that investigation probably cost you dear taxpayers in excess of $100K.??... no matter, its brief was to look at only....whether they had breached the code of conduct....that bizarre motherhood document that is a treatise in pap and bollocks as far as CAsA staff are concerned.
You do have to give CAsA credit for being a world leader.... in bureaucratic buggery and spin.
More wriggles than a can of sewerage farm worms.
Our Dear Leader McComic has had a chat/s with the AFP in years past, to advise that serious criminality by CAsA staff is but " a joke, and trivial "
Not to worry AFP chappies, ..all will be dealt with by the (No)Ethics and (Mis)Conduct committee...one of McComic's brilliant diversonary tactics to lower the bar to side step criminality for just Admin penalties.
Of course there was an external investigation contracted out .."to make it fairer to the staff" (sic)..because the ICC's result wasnt to the liking.
Unfortunately the external guy found the same...AFP needed.
Never mind the pot plants and the taxi fares, that investigation probably cost you dear taxpayers in excess of $100K.??... no matter, its brief was to look at only....whether they had breached the code of conduct....that bizarre motherhood document that is a treatise in pap and bollocks as far as CAsA staff are concerned.
You do have to give CAsA credit for being a world leader.... in bureaucratic buggery and spin.
More wriggles than a can of sewerage farm worms.
The present view in Govt is that you cannot make a law without an associated penalty.
So??
That's true of regulations generally, and not limited to Australia, and is not new.
My comment about the style of the NZ regulations did not say there were no penalties. Of course there are, but they are not in your face. Just lay a few NZ regs. beside the AU equivalent, the differences in drafting are as I suggested, and very obvious. Generally, NZ rules are not written in the negative.
Creamie,
Most of us understand the "place" for strict liability penalties, and the mere existence of strict liability penalties is nothing new, as you have posted on may occasions. The argument, as far as I am concerned, is the improper designation of offences in the AU CAR/CASRs when the regulation is dealing with a matter that calls for a judgement by the pilot, where there is a clear mental element, called for by the regulation. How can this properly be a strict liability offence? Contrary to various government guidelines for drafting primary or secondary legislation, and you know the guidelines better than I do.
As for use of reverse onus of proof, I don't think anybody ever denied that they can be found in legislation, but the issue is: Should they be used?
I have a very simple view on this issue, in a criminal law system, there should not be reverse onus of proof, and most certainly not ever for bureaucratic convenience in the enforcement process.
Tootle pip!!
It now seems to be the practice with draft CASRs, that the designated penalty is 50 points, no matter how serious or otherwise the importance of the infringement. This was an issue brought up at the last CASA SCC meeting --- I got the impression that the CASA upper management didn't even know.
Last edited by LeadSled; 11th Jun 2013 at 08:11.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Leadie, you are incorrect mate. You need to look deep into the INH accident. Rushed training, inefficient training, multiple ops manuals being used, organisational pressure, AN assuming QF would help out on some issues, unrealistic timeframes and an entire new aircraft type, human factors....
Look through the rose coloured SMS glasses!
And yes, pilot error was a factor, just not the only factor. Had BASI conducted the investigation today, 2013 it would have been a different report! Then again, only god knows what mi mii mi Beakers report would have said? Plus he would not have had the budget to conduct a comprehensive investigation, being the budget conscious bureaucrat that he is!
Back to the thread....
Look through the rose coloured SMS glasses!
And yes, pilot error was a factor, just not the only factor. Had BASI conducted the investigation today, 2013 it would have been a different report! Then again, only god knows what mi mii mi Beakers report would have said? Plus he would not have had the budget to conduct a comprehensive investigation, being the budget conscious bureaucrat that he is!
Back to the thread....
But Leaddie me ol’ quince, in the Singapore aviation rules everything’s a strict liability offence with a penalty more than the equivalent of 50 Australian penalty units. The only exceptions have higher penalties/prison.
How can Singapore possibly function as an aviation nation?
In the ‘what I don’t like about strict liability’ thread, I asked about the number of people of which posters were aware who have been prosecuted for strict liability offences. I think on last count we were up to 2 (two).
Do you know what happens in the NZ rules Leaddie? Are you sure ….
That just confirms that regulatory reform in Australia is still the blind leading the deaf leading the delusional, resulting in an increasingly ugly and out of control Frankenstein.
Do you know anyone – any person on the planet – who would behave differently on the basis that the penalty for an offence is 10 penalty units rather than 50 or 18.935?
“What ho, Squiffy! I was about to take off without my charts because I thought the penalty was only 10 penalty units, which, when one takes into account the fact that the specified penalty is merely a maximum and an infringement notice would only be 1/5th of that, isn’t that much. But jigger me with a bargepole if I wasn’t flicking through my copy of the regulations when I discovered the penalty is now 18.935 penalty units! Damn it man, get me those charts!”
How can Singapore possibly function as an aviation nation?
In the ‘what I don’t like about strict liability’ thread, I asked about the number of people of which posters were aware who have been prosecuted for strict liability offences. I think on last count we were up to 2 (two).
Do you know what happens in the NZ rules Leaddie? Are you sure ….
It now seems to be the practice with draft CASRs, that the designated penalty is 50 points, no matter how serious or otherwise the importance of the infringement. This was an issue brought up at the last CASA SCC meeting --- I got the impression that the CASA upper management didn't even know.
Do you know anyone – any person on the planet – who would behave differently on the basis that the penalty for an offence is 10 penalty units rather than 50 or 18.935?
“What ho, Squiffy! I was about to take off without my charts because I thought the penalty was only 10 penalty units, which, when one takes into account the fact that the specified penalty is merely a maximum and an infringement notice would only be 1/5th of that, isn’t that much. But jigger me with a bargepole if I wasn’t flicking through my copy of the regulations when I discovered the penalty is now 18.935 penalty units! Damn it man, get me those charts!”
Last edited by Creampuff; 11th Jun 2013 at 10:30.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I may have drifted off.
Apologies, but this is about The Senate Inquisition, not about pedantic opinions of how things should work. The Senate has spoken despite Creampuff's 'in house' mutterings!
The fact is the outboard motor is stuffed, do we fix it or buy a new one?
There appears to be a lot of experts here 'after the fact'.
Apologies, but this is about The Senate Inquisition, not about pedantic opinions of how things should work. The Senate has spoken despite Creampuff's 'in house' mutterings!
The fact is the outboard motor is stuffed, do we fix it or buy a new one?
There appears to be a lot of experts here 'after the fact'.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 11th Jun 2013 at 10:48. Reason: Where are the freekin oars?