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
New game:
BRB last evening and I had devised a wheeze to win back some of the bets (in pints) from a couple of the crew. It was cunning, and worked a treat, but the odds were always on my side.
I have, of late been obliged to read through many letters, RCA (as were), NCN, reports, audits and the like. Now the BRB reckon, when you read through a lot of this stuff, you can after while, identify who wrote it. Now, the "Chambers Report" has been studied in depth by all the BRB (as the subject of much critical acclaim); so it's fair to say, that they could spot the non plagiarised, hand crafted parts easily enough. In fact there are some (nameless) who dared brag about being able to do so. Thus inspired, my plan was hatched.....
Here's how the trick works– get a copy of the Pel Air RCA then challenge your victim to identify the author; just make sure they can't see the name of whoever raised it. When they declare that this was writ by "Bloggs", let them see the names section, win your pint and enjoy the look of consternation on their faces. Many smiles and free pints for "K" last evening....
The secret is to use the ones with Cook or Scrimes name typed in the right hand box; then have your victim read the 'complaint' area, eight out ten will smile and say "Our Wodger wrote this, no mistake", then allow them to see the signature; "Ah hah" they coo, "pony up K". That's when I strike – "Nope see here" says I, "where it says raised by; read it and weep, that'll be one pint please". Some of the responses were unprintable, some were of amazement but they did kick off a lively discussion which went on, I'm ashamed to say, well past a respectable hour. Time gentlemen please.
Of course, it's only a silly game, played for fun and pints, but it just goes to show how very easily magicians earn their money, deception, sleight of hand, smoke, mirrors etc. Money, or beer in this case, for old rope.....
Well, I'm off to recover Gobbles pachyderm, seems he is all alone in the ministers office and there's no one to feed the poor beast; GD wants him home before the pot plants start disappearing. "Hitch up the wagon Minnie, we're off to see the wizard".
I have, of late been obliged to read through many letters, RCA (as were), NCN, reports, audits and the like. Now the BRB reckon, when you read through a lot of this stuff, you can after while, identify who wrote it. Now, the "Chambers Report" has been studied in depth by all the BRB (as the subject of much critical acclaim); so it's fair to say, that they could spot the non plagiarised, hand crafted parts easily enough. In fact there are some (nameless) who dared brag about being able to do so. Thus inspired, my plan was hatched.....
Here's how the trick works– get a copy of the Pel Air RCA then challenge your victim to identify the author; just make sure they can't see the name of whoever raised it. When they declare that this was writ by "Bloggs", let them see the names section, win your pint and enjoy the look of consternation on their faces. Many smiles and free pints for "K" last evening....
The secret is to use the ones with Cook or Scrimes name typed in the right hand box; then have your victim read the 'complaint' area, eight out ten will smile and say "Our Wodger wrote this, no mistake", then allow them to see the signature; "Ah hah" they coo, "pony up K". That's when I strike – "Nope see here" says I, "where it says raised by; read it and weep, that'll be one pint please". Some of the responses were unprintable, some were of amazement but they did kick off a lively discussion which went on, I'm ashamed to say, well past a respectable hour. Time gentlemen please.
Of course, it's only a silly game, played for fun and pints, but it just goes to show how very easily magicians earn their money, deception, sleight of hand, smoke, mirrors etc. Money, or beer in this case, for old rope.....
Well, I'm off to recover Gobbles pachyderm, seems he is all alone in the ministers office and there's no one to feed the poor beast; GD wants him home before the pot plants start disappearing. "Hitch up the wagon Minnie, we're off to see the wizard".
Last edited by Kharon; 26th Jun 2013 at 20:59. Reason: You are quick today. Good one.
Speaking of Chamberpots and wodgering Wodgers..
Apparently the angry man is getting angrier and in public too
:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss John McCormick denies accusations of misbehaviour on flight
Now that's the kind of headline that Mr Mrdak and co really want to wake up to hey?? Doin a Kelpie...
:
CASA head gets more bad press on top of Pel-Air issues
At face value the reported comments are trivial, if uncouth, if they were actually said.
But true or untrue, the report would hardly be welcome considering the far more serious issues raised about McCormick’s conduct and actions in withholding from the ATSB a document of material importance when it was making its supposedly independent inquiry into the Pel-Air crash near Norfolk Island in 2009.
What is remarkable however about the news item published this morning is that Qantas doesn’t deny that it happened. It says instead to quote the news item “Qantas doesn’t comment on individual passengers on individual flights.”
That is the kick in the report. Qantas doesn’t deny the existence of an internal report, nor its contents, that the newspapers have relied upon to write their report. Maybe it will later today. Either way it is not as important when it comes to the state of public administration of air safety in this country and the abuse of process by CASA under McCormick, and the ATSB, that was identified and annotation in great detail by a recent Senate committee inquiry into the final report into the Pel-Air crash that was published after a delay of nearly three years last year.
That is where the Senate committee from its own investigations found a crucial document suppressed by CASA that was a review of its actions in relation to the Pel-Air crash that was ordered by McCormick.
In that ‘Chambers review’ CASA’s incompetence and lack of oversight in relation to Pel-Air was exposed, yet hidden from the notice of the ATSB contrary to the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act, raising the question, as yet unanswered, as to whether McCormick had committed an offence under the act.
In testimony before the Senate committee when he was confronted with the document, McCormick both admits and apologises for his actions.
The Chambers review document makes the point that had CASA done its job properly the Pel-Air crash might never have occurred. The suppression of that document, and the shabby quality of the ATSB report into the crash, has raised doubts as to the integrity and professionalism and direction of the ATSB, with the Senate committee specifically detailing what they considered the unsatisfactory testimony given to it by the ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan.
The difference between the ATSB’s conduct in Pel-Air crash, and in its role in the investigation of a catastrophic engine failure on a Qantas A380 in November 2010 is expected to be on full display this morning when its final report into that incident is released.
The ATSB in conjunction with other international air safety bodies, has exhaustively pursued every piece of evidence in relation to that incident, unlike its much criticised role in producing a very flawed report into the Pel-Air crash.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/06/27/casa-head-gets-more-bad-press-on-top-of-pel-air-issues/
- Ben Sandilands | Jun 27, 2013 6:27AM
At face value the reported comments are trivial, if uncouth, if they were actually said.
But true or untrue, the report would hardly be welcome considering the far more serious issues raised about McCormick’s conduct and actions in withholding from the ATSB a document of material importance when it was making its supposedly independent inquiry into the Pel-Air crash near Norfolk Island in 2009.
What is remarkable however about the news item published this morning is that Qantas doesn’t deny that it happened. It says instead to quote the news item “Qantas doesn’t comment on individual passengers on individual flights.”
That is the kick in the report. Qantas doesn’t deny the existence of an internal report, nor its contents, that the newspapers have relied upon to write their report. Maybe it will later today. Either way it is not as important when it comes to the state of public administration of air safety in this country and the abuse of process by CASA under McCormick, and the ATSB, that was identified and annotation in great detail by a recent Senate committee inquiry into the final report into the Pel-Air crash that was published after a delay of nearly three years last year.
That is where the Senate committee from its own investigations found a crucial document suppressed by CASA that was a review of its actions in relation to the Pel-Air crash that was ordered by McCormick.
In that ‘Chambers review’ CASA’s incompetence and lack of oversight in relation to Pel-Air was exposed, yet hidden from the notice of the ATSB contrary to the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act, raising the question, as yet unanswered, as to whether McCormick had committed an offence under the act.
In testimony before the Senate committee when he was confronted with the document, McCormick both admits and apologises for his actions.
The Chambers review document makes the point that had CASA done its job properly the Pel-Air crash might never have occurred. The suppression of that document, and the shabby quality of the ATSB report into the crash, has raised doubts as to the integrity and professionalism and direction of the ATSB, with the Senate committee specifically detailing what they considered the unsatisfactory testimony given to it by the ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan.
The difference between the ATSB’s conduct in Pel-Air crash, and in its role in the investigation of a catastrophic engine failure on a Qantas A380 in November 2010 is expected to be on full display this morning when its final report into that incident is released.
The ATSB in conjunction with other international air safety bodies, has exhaustively pursued every piece of evidence in relation to that incident, unlike its much criticised role in producing a very flawed report into the Pel-Air crash.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/06/27/casa-head-gets-more-bad-press-on-top-of-pel-air-issues/
Now that's the kind of headline that Mr Mrdak and co really want to wake up to hey?? Doin a Kelpie...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody lost their dummy. Priceless!
So it would be rumoured that the Screaming Skull has yet again put his pilot foot in his mouth? I imagine that by now Mrdak would have had a gutful, then again they did fear this sort of DAS mentality, hence during the appointment of Skull it came down to either him or Carmody. Oh well, sleep with dogs and you end up with fleas I say.
But didnt the Skull deny allegations of a bad temper at the Senate Inquiry when questioned about it? His reputation over decades, stabs at those critiquing his methods, comments about 'ills of society', AMROBA behaviour etc etc surely indicates the man may have some issues? A Hempel in the making? Or in the very least a potential coronary, high blood pressure and the likelihood of busting a foofer valve. Still have his PPL does he? Time to buy him a birthday present containing lithium and Prozac!
Also, who is he (if the rumours are true) to verbally espouse his thoughts about the landing? Typical shoot from the hip mentality as has been displayed in his other dealings on matters. Maybe the pilots on the flight in question got belted with a sudden tail wind as they flared? Maybe there was a mechanical issue? Who knows, but who the hell is John to be making a song and a dance about it? I think someone should advise him that just because he is DAS that doesn't automatically mean you are the worlds best pilot. But maybe he just received a pineapple in Canberra? Was there an olive missing out of his business class meal? Had he just read an online comment about him written by an ill of society? Did his Hawaiian shirt 'turn off' the flight attendant? Had he just opened up The Australian newspaper to be greeted by a photo of Senator Xenophon or a picture of pot plants? Or maybe he ran out of fuel on his way to the airport prior to the flight?
Just more plausible yet to be confirmed reports about a Regulatory body out of control, displaying contempt for industry people.
John, 'with responsibility comes accountability '.
Screaming Skull vs Ills of Society. Round 1;
YouTube
But didnt the Skull deny allegations of a bad temper at the Senate Inquiry when questioned about it? His reputation over decades, stabs at those critiquing his methods, comments about 'ills of society', AMROBA behaviour etc etc surely indicates the man may have some issues? A Hempel in the making? Or in the very least a potential coronary, high blood pressure and the likelihood of busting a foofer valve. Still have his PPL does he? Time to buy him a birthday present containing lithium and Prozac!
Also, who is he (if the rumours are true) to verbally espouse his thoughts about the landing? Typical shoot from the hip mentality as has been displayed in his other dealings on matters. Maybe the pilots on the flight in question got belted with a sudden tail wind as they flared? Maybe there was a mechanical issue? Who knows, but who the hell is John to be making a song and a dance about it? I think someone should advise him that just because he is DAS that doesn't automatically mean you are the worlds best pilot. But maybe he just received a pineapple in Canberra? Was there an olive missing out of his business class meal? Had he just read an online comment about him written by an ill of society? Did his Hawaiian shirt 'turn off' the flight attendant? Had he just opened up The Australian newspaper to be greeted by a photo of Senator Xenophon or a picture of pot plants? Or maybe he ran out of fuel on his way to the airport prior to the flight?
Just more plausible yet to be confirmed reports about a Regulatory body out of control, displaying contempt for industry people.
John, 'with responsibility comes accountability '.
Screaming Skull vs Ills of Society. Round 1;
YouTube
Last edited by 004wercras; 27th Jun 2013 at 03:02.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa, McCormick and anger management
Every one has a laugh about john mccormick and his temper.
I was in the Senate in May 2011 and saw him asked some questions by Heff and the senators.
As soon as the session concluded, mccormick turned on those near him, the face reddened and started yelling - "Was that person ...... that heff referred too??" at jonathon alleck and a couple of by-standers including farquarson.
I was unimpressed with his action, which was witnessed by others in the public gallery.
He is not called the "screaming skull" for no reason - and it certainly is a disgraceful way for a senior public servant to act.
I was in the Senate in May 2011 and saw him asked some questions by Heff and the senators.
As soon as the session concluded, mccormick turned on those near him, the face reddened and started yelling - "Was that person ...... that heff referred too??" at jonathon alleck and a couple of by-standers including farquarson.
I was unimpressed with his action, which was witnessed by others in the public gallery.
He is not called the "screaming skull" for no reason - and it certainly is a disgraceful way for a senior public servant to act.
Nick's disallowance motion of CAO48.1
The soap opera continues in the other house, where apparently we're now swapping back to the sociopath for PM...remember this from last estimates:
Well according to today's Dynamic Red Sen X has followed through with this proposed disallowance motion:
This motion should be happening very soon (around 12:30-13:00)and can be viewed here..
Parliament of Australia}
Postponed till tomorrow..(hmm forgot the Senate were sitting an extra day
)
Smart politics on the last sitting day of this Parliament! Vote 1 for Nick
Oh and by the way Albo retains the top job!
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 of questions 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: 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 of questions on notice. In relation to the recent inquiry, I think you told the inquiry that you instigated the Chambers report. Is that right?
Parliament of Australia}
Postponed till tomorrow..(hmm forgot the Senate were sitting an extra day
) Smart politics on the last sitting day of this Parliament!
Vote 1 for NickOh and by the way Albo retains the top job!
Last edited by Sarcs; 27th Jun 2013 at 03:11.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"just because he is DAS that doesn't automatically mean you are the worlds best pilot"
Of course it does!! when anyone joins CAsA they automatically become "Experts" in all things aviation, including aircraft they have never even seen,
hell they even know more about aircraft than the people who build them.
Of course it does!! when anyone joins CAsA they automatically become "Experts" in all things aviation, including aircraft they have never even seen,
hell they even know more about aircraft than the people who build them.
Last edited by thorn bird; 27th Jun 2013 at 03:57.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headless Chooks
Slight thread drift
Released recently and tongue in cheek!!
Australian Federal Election Commercial - Labor Headleass Chooks - YouTube
Released recently and tongue in cheek!!
Australian Federal Election Commercial - Labor Headleass Chooks - YouTube
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 27th Jun 2013 at 04:07.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa just do not get it!!!!!!!!!
From the June 2013 leadie:
and from the Hon. Senator Xenophon:
Good work from the Senate
Being a regulator often puts us in that awkward, if unavoidable, position of being 'damned if we do and dammed if we don't'. There will always be those who find regulations of any kind not to their liking. However, as a responsible regulator and consistent with the consultative obligations specified in the Civil Aviation Act, we must arrive at the most appropriate position for aviation safety in Australia. Fair and constructive criticism is an important and valuable part of the safety quotient in a democratic society like ours. The baseless criticism we sometimes receive—frequently misinformed, sometimes mischievous and at times personally abusive-is regrettable, unhelpful and dangerously erosive of public confidence in Australia’s system of aviation safety.
and from the Hon. Senator Xenophon:
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013
- F2013L00628
Orders/Civil Aviation as made:
This order provides Air Operator Certificate holders and flight crew members with a comprehensive regulatory framework for the more effective management of fatigue and fatigue risk in aviation operations.
Administered by: Infrastructure and Transport
Made 28 Mar 2013 Registered 08 Apr 2013 Tabled HR 14 May 2013 Tabled Senate 14 May 2013
This Legislative Instrument has been subject to a Motion to Disallow:
Motion DateExpiry DateHouseDetailsProvisionsResolutionResolution DateResolution Time 24-Jun-201316-Sep-2013 Senate Full
- F2013L00628
Orders/Civil Aviation as made:
This order provides Air Operator Certificate holders and flight crew members with a comprehensive regulatory framework for the more effective management of fatigue and fatigue risk in aviation operations.
Administered by: Infrastructure and Transport
Made 28 Mar 2013 Registered 08 Apr 2013 Tabled HR 14 May 2013 Tabled Senate 14 May 2013
This Legislative Instrument has been subject to a Motion to Disallow:
Motion DateExpiry DateHouseDetailsProvisionsResolutionResolution DateResolution Time 24-Jun-201316-Sep-2013 Senate Full
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 29th Jun 2013 at 04:03. Reason: speeling
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baseless it is.
"The baseless criticism we sometimes receive—frequently misinformed, sometimes mischievous and at times personally abusive-is regrettable, unhelpful and dangerously erosive of public confidence in Australia’s system of aviation safety."
The fat lady always has the last words:-
Lady Macbeth . I pray you, speak not; he grows
worse and worse;
Question enrages him. At once, good-night:
Stand not upon the order of your going,
But go at once.
worse and worse;
Question enrages him. At once, good-night:
Stand not upon the order of your going,
But go at once.
Last edited by Kharon; 27th Jun 2013 at 20:03.
I have a feeling in my water that we are at "Game Over" stage because whatever momentum the "reform" movement had, it is now lost. Albanese is now Deputy Prime Minister. He is going to be busier than a one armed paper hangar for the foreseeable future. He has no interest in the Aviation component of his portfolio anyway and his new appointment means it will receive even less attention than it did before.
Against that background, Mr. Mrdaks stocks have just risen, in my opinion, since his boss has been promoted. Any threat of PM & C intervening by asking pointed questions about CASA and ATSB is now less than zero since Albanese has a direct line to Rudd.
We thus have a hiatus while we wait for a Federal election. What happens after that is anyones guess, mine being that the Department will lobby very hard for the appointment of a Minister who will NOT make waves, and Abbott and his minders will most likely concur for the reason that making waves is the sort of "courageaous" action that a Sir Humphrey would detest.
Against that background, Mr. Mrdaks stocks have just risen, in my opinion, since his boss has been promoted. Any threat of PM & C intervening by asking pointed questions about CASA and ATSB is now less than zero since Albanese has a direct line to Rudd.
We thus have a hiatus while we wait for a Federal election. What happens after that is anyones guess, mine being that the Department will lobby very hard for the appointment of a Minister who will NOT make waves, and Abbott and his minders will most likely concur for the reason that making waves is the sort of "courageaous" action that a Sir Humphrey would detest.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courage; and shuffle the cards.
Sunny, Betcha a Tim Tam against a Choccy frog. When Albo is working at the local Thai fish and chip shop (not on the till), Master Mrdak will still in a position to make things happen, particularly if a clear imperative from his 'boss' is given. I feel it would be a mistake to underestimate the intelligence, determination and integrity of the bi partisan crew in the Senate; and, no matter how the cards may fall the new boys and girls will have the luxury of being able, unimpeded, to get things sorted. The only thing in limbo is the 'political will' to continue the process. My Tim Tam says there is; the Senate was rightly 'disgusted and concerned'. Anyway, lest they forget, we can always jog the old memory banks. eh?....
I told him I had ambitions, too – to live as I please, love as I please and never grow old. He didn’t think much of that , I fancy; he told me I was frivolous, and would be disappointed. Only the strong, he said, could afford ambitions. So I told him I had a much better motto than that…“Courage – and shuffle the cards” . Royal Flash – G. Macdonald Fraser.
Last edited by Kharon; 27th Jun 2013 at 20:58.
Herald Sun article déjà vu with Norfolk ditching??
Kharon’s post IMHO on the YMIA thread was spot on and needs regurgitating because of the significant relevance to this thread, see #287.
Some on that thread believe that Kharon is denigrating the efforts of the crew but IMO “K” is just pointing out the possible holes in the Swiss cheese and living in hope we get the bureau of old to explore all the systemic issues involved so that industry can learn from what was best described by the Mildura Airport CEO Bill Burke.."I don't think half the people involved know how serious this incident was.”
I also find a deal of irony in the Sun Herald article when compared to the Norfolk ditching reports that came out soon after the incident occurred, ‘example’.
And the Sun Herald report:
Hmm also wondering given the seriousness of this incident if like the Norfolk investigation whether CAsA will/have initiated a parallel investigation (as per the MOU)??
If that is the case perhaps VA or the Flightcrew’s union should be asking for full transparency from CAsA’s ‘Accident Liaison Investigation Unit’, as we all now know what happens if these people are left to their own devices. You only need refer to, what was largely a ‘hidden’ document (before the Senate Inquiry), ‘CAsA Accident Investigation Report 09/3’ (pdf page 65 onwards) to see how the facts can be blurred from the fiction.
Here is a relevant sub-paragraph for both incidents from CAIR 09/3 (the hidden report):
And here is the METAR/SPECI record around the time of the YMIA incident (take note of the temps):
The only split that I can see in that lot is in the negative (1 degree) from 0600 CST till 1030 CST….hmm doin a Kelpie…
ps Nick good luck with the disallowance motion!
Some on that thread believe that Kharon is denigrating the efforts of the crew but IMO “K” is just pointing out the possible holes in the Swiss cheese and living in hope we get the bureau of old to explore all the systemic issues involved so that industry can learn from what was best described by the Mildura Airport CEO Bill Burke.."I don't think half the people involved know how serious this incident was.”
I also find a deal of irony in the Sun Herald article when compared to the Norfolk ditching reports that came out soon after the incident occurred, ‘example’.
And the Sun Herald report:
Pilot who flew in low visibility while running out of fuel praised for safe landing
A VIRGIN Australia flight with 91 people aboard was forced to land because it was running out of fuel.
Flight VA 1384 from Brisbane to Adelaide, on June 18, had less than 800kg of fuel when it landed at Mildura after an aborted attempt due to heavy fog.
Aviation sources said this was not enough fuel to allow a safe attempt at another go-around, owing to the high fuel burn of a jet pulling out of an aborted landing.
Mildura airport CEO Bill Burke, who is also a commercial pilot, said the Virgin pilot should be given a medal.
"It (the flight) was committed - it didn't have enough fuel to do another go-around," he said.
"I don't think half the people involved know how serious this incident was.
"It was committed: they were going to be on the ground in one form or another - either safely, on three wheels, or as a smoking wreck at the end of the runway. That sounds dramatic but it's true. It's factual."
The pilot declared a fuel emergency and landed despite fog obscuring his vision until the plane was just 25m above the ground. This was below the usual visual requirement of around 120m.
Despite flying "blind", the plane landed safely and the 86 passengers, who had been ordered into the brace position, were not injured.
Virgin spokeswoman Jacqui Abbott confirmed there was an investigation into the safe landing of the plane at Mildura.
"Virgin Australia is co-operating fully with the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) to determine the full circumstances surrounding this event and it would be inappropriate to further comment on the ATSB's ongoing investigation," Ms Abbott said.
The plane, a year-old Boeing 737-800, was briefly grounded pending engineering checks.
The pilot was using RNAV - an on-board computer system which assists the pilot with landing at specific airports.
The ATSB has listed the incident as "serious" and is investigating.
The investigation will look at the operations of the automatic weather station at the Mildura Airport.
The weather bureau believes it was working, but there was a fault with how the station's information was distributed.
The Herald Sun can reveal a NOTAM (notice to airmen) had been issued two weeks before the incident advising that no information was available from the station.
Sources also said a weather forecast issued by the bureau before the flight landed at Mildura advised of broken cloud at 3400 feet and no fog.
The flight was diverted to Mildura after being unable to land at Adelaide owing to heavy fog, as did an Adelaide-bound Qantas 737 from Sydney. The Qantas flight landed in slightly better conditions minutes ahead of the Virgin flight, and its pilots radioed the Virgin pilots to advise there was visibility closer to the ground.
The ATSB is investigating what information was provided by the weather bureau, and what information the Virgin operations centre passed to the five-member crew flying VA 1384.
Mr Burke said he was in the airport terminal listening to the radio transmission, and he could hear the engines of the flight as it did a go-around and came in for the final landing.
"I didn't see it. The fog was unbelievably thick - the thickest I've ever seen in my life.
"That pilot did an incredible job of interpreting all the information.
"He should get a medal."
He confirmed that about two weeks before the incident, a notice had been issued that the automated weather station at Mildura was out of service.
The ATSB said its investigation would involve a "review of the relevant radio and radar data" and an "examination of the relevant weather observations and forecasts", among other matters.
The Virgin flight's "black box" voice recordings have been seized as part of the routine inquiries.
A VIRGIN Australia flight with 91 people aboard was forced to land because it was running out of fuel.
Flight VA 1384 from Brisbane to Adelaide, on June 18, had less than 800kg of fuel when it landed at Mildura after an aborted attempt due to heavy fog.
Aviation sources said this was not enough fuel to allow a safe attempt at another go-around, owing to the high fuel burn of a jet pulling out of an aborted landing.
Mildura airport CEO Bill Burke, who is also a commercial pilot, said the Virgin pilot should be given a medal.
"It (the flight) was committed - it didn't have enough fuel to do another go-around," he said.
"I don't think half the people involved know how serious this incident was.
"It was committed: they were going to be on the ground in one form or another - either safely, on three wheels, or as a smoking wreck at the end of the runway. That sounds dramatic but it's true. It's factual."
The pilot declared a fuel emergency and landed despite fog obscuring his vision until the plane was just 25m above the ground. This was below the usual visual requirement of around 120m.
Despite flying "blind", the plane landed safely and the 86 passengers, who had been ordered into the brace position, were not injured.
Virgin spokeswoman Jacqui Abbott confirmed there was an investigation into the safe landing of the plane at Mildura.
"Virgin Australia is co-operating fully with the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) to determine the full circumstances surrounding this event and it would be inappropriate to further comment on the ATSB's ongoing investigation," Ms Abbott said.
The plane, a year-old Boeing 737-800, was briefly grounded pending engineering checks.
The pilot was using RNAV - an on-board computer system which assists the pilot with landing at specific airports.
The ATSB has listed the incident as "serious" and is investigating.
The investigation will look at the operations of the automatic weather station at the Mildura Airport.
The weather bureau believes it was working, but there was a fault with how the station's information was distributed.
The Herald Sun can reveal a NOTAM (notice to airmen) had been issued two weeks before the incident advising that no information was available from the station.
Sources also said a weather forecast issued by the bureau before the flight landed at Mildura advised of broken cloud at 3400 feet and no fog.
The flight was diverted to Mildura after being unable to land at Adelaide owing to heavy fog, as did an Adelaide-bound Qantas 737 from Sydney. The Qantas flight landed in slightly better conditions minutes ahead of the Virgin flight, and its pilots radioed the Virgin pilots to advise there was visibility closer to the ground.
The ATSB is investigating what information was provided by the weather bureau, and what information the Virgin operations centre passed to the five-member crew flying VA 1384.
Mr Burke said he was in the airport terminal listening to the radio transmission, and he could hear the engines of the flight as it did a go-around and came in for the final landing.
"I didn't see it. The fog was unbelievably thick - the thickest I've ever seen in my life.
"That pilot did an incredible job of interpreting all the information.
"He should get a medal."
He confirmed that about two weeks before the incident, a notice had been issued that the automated weather station at Mildura was out of service.
The ATSB said its investigation would involve a "review of the relevant radio and radar data" and an "examination of the relevant weather observations and forecasts", among other matters.
The Virgin flight's "black box" voice recordings have been seized as part of the routine inquiries.
If that is the case perhaps VA or the Flightcrew’s union should be asking for full transparency from CAsA’s ‘Accident Liaison Investigation Unit’, as we all now know what happens if these people are left to their own devices. You only need refer to, what was largely a ‘hidden’ document (before the Senate Inquiry), ‘CAsA Accident Investigation Report 09/3’ (pdf page 65 onwards) to see how the facts can be blurred from the fiction.
Here is a relevant sub-paragraph for both incidents from CAIR 09/3 (the hidden report):
1.18.4 Weather updates received in-flight
The Captain received an in-flight weather report at 0801 which indicated that the weather at Norfolk Island had deteriorated below the minima conditions which required the holding of an alternate aerodrome. The weather report indicated only a very small difference of 2 degrees between the current temperature and the dew point (21/19).
The Captain received an in-flight weather report at 0801 which indicated that the weather at Norfolk Island had deteriorated below the minima conditions which required the holding of an alternate aerodrome. The weather report indicated only a very small difference of 2 degrees between the current temperature and the dew point (21/19).
METAR YPAD 172030Z 08005KT 9999 FEW022 05/05 Q1019 NOSIG
METAR YPAD 172100Z 05004KT 9999 FEW022 05/05 Q1019 NOSIG
SPECI YPAD 172111Z 06005KT 9999 MIFG FEW022 SCT058 05/05 Q1020 NOSIG
METAR YPAD 172130Z 06004KT 9999 MIFG FEW022 05/04 Q1020 NOSIG
SPECI YPAD 172130Z 06004KT 9999 MIFG FEW022 05/04 Q1020 NOSIG
SPECI YPAD 172200Z 01006KT 9999 1000NW PRFG MIFG FEW022 05/05 Q1020 FM2200 01005KT 0500 FG FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172205Z 01006KT 2000 0500N FG FEW022 05/04 Q1020 FM2205 01005KT 0500 FG FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172215Z 02006KT 0500 0250N FG OVC001 05/04 Q1020 FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172230Z 04005KT 0150 FG OVC001 06/05 Q1020 FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
METAR YPAD 172230Z 04005KT 0150 FG OVC001 06/05 Q1020 FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172300Z 04006KT 0150 FG OVC000 06/06 Q1021 FM2330 05005KT 9999 FEW025
METAR YPAD 172300Z 04006KT 0150 FG OVC000 06/06 Q1021 FM2330 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172330Z 04005KT 0150 FG OVC000 07/07 Q1021 FM2400 05005KT 9999 FEW025
METAR YPAD 180000Z 01005KT 0150 FG OVC000 08/07 Q1021 FM0100 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 180000Z 01005KT 0150 FG OVC000 08/07 Q1021 FM0100 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 180030Z 01004KT 0150 FG OVC000 08/08 Q1022 FM0100 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 180100Z 03001KT 0500 0350N FG OVC001 09/09 Q1022 FM0130 05005KT 9999 FEW025
METAR YPAD 172100Z 05004KT 9999 FEW022 05/05 Q1019 NOSIG
SPECI YPAD 172111Z 06005KT 9999 MIFG FEW022 SCT058 05/05 Q1020 NOSIG
METAR YPAD 172130Z 06004KT 9999 MIFG FEW022 05/04 Q1020 NOSIG
SPECI YPAD 172130Z 06004KT 9999 MIFG FEW022 05/04 Q1020 NOSIG
SPECI YPAD 172200Z 01006KT 9999 1000NW PRFG MIFG FEW022 05/05 Q1020 FM2200 01005KT 0500 FG FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172205Z 01006KT 2000 0500N FG FEW022 05/04 Q1020 FM2205 01005KT 0500 FG FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172215Z 02006KT 0500 0250N FG OVC001 05/04 Q1020 FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172230Z 04005KT 0150 FG OVC001 06/05 Q1020 FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
METAR YPAD 172230Z 04005KT 0150 FG OVC001 06/05 Q1020 FM2300 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172300Z 04006KT 0150 FG OVC000 06/06 Q1021 FM2330 05005KT 9999 FEW025
METAR YPAD 172300Z 04006KT 0150 FG OVC000 06/06 Q1021 FM2330 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 172330Z 04005KT 0150 FG OVC000 07/07 Q1021 FM2400 05005KT 9999 FEW025
METAR YPAD 180000Z 01005KT 0150 FG OVC000 08/07 Q1021 FM0100 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 180000Z 01005KT 0150 FG OVC000 08/07 Q1021 FM0100 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 180030Z 01004KT 0150 FG OVC000 08/08 Q1022 FM0100 05005KT 9999 FEW025
SPECI YPAD 180100Z 03001KT 0500 0350N FG OVC001 09/09 Q1022 FM0130 05005KT 9999 FEW025
ps Nick good luck with the disallowance motion!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look out Minnie, Gobbles has his Doppler out again!
Nice post Sarcs, a number of interesting observations raised. The question of whether (or perhaps weather) Fort Fumble's bling wearing ALOO runs a parallel investigation with The Fabulous Beaker Brothers is a good question? I would say that under the terms of the MOU (proudly sponsored by Dr Voodoo enterprises) the answer would be yes, but then you never can tell. Either way I am sure that any investigation carried out within the terms and framework of the CAsA/ATSBeaker MOU will be clear, transparent, minutes taken, conversations recorded etc etc!
As a side point, and I know this is a 'pilots rumour network', so please allow me a little room to move your Honour, can any BoM employees out there confirm whether there has been robust staff cuts and funding cuts commencing around 2 year ago? I know that sort of rules out the Norfolk accident but I was recently advised that there has been a significant scaling back of technology spending at the BoM as well as staff cutbacks, natural attrition, shuffling of staff around the network and in fact insufficient staff numbers at places such as Darwin and Cairns which are subject to a greater amount of high risk weather events/conditions?
To put it another way (thanks for the loan of that one Sunny) could 'government penny pinching 101' be a contributing factor in any accident or incident in recent years?
It's just a question i am throwing out there to our 'fair weathered friends' (that really is a sick one) at the BoM. It just seems that a lot of pineapple ends have been pointed at the BoM in recent times, so perhaps we are starting to see the exposure of a significant latent condition? How would the BoM guys and gals rate the capacity, capability, quality and systematic processes of the BoM on the Fujita scale - An EF1 - Weak and ineffective, or an EF5 - robust, hardy and all powerful??
As a side point, and I know this is a 'pilots rumour network', so please allow me a little room to move your Honour, can any BoM employees out there confirm whether there has been robust staff cuts and funding cuts commencing around 2 year ago? I know that sort of rules out the Norfolk accident but I was recently advised that there has been a significant scaling back of technology spending at the BoM as well as staff cutbacks, natural attrition, shuffling of staff around the network and in fact insufficient staff numbers at places such as Darwin and Cairns which are subject to a greater amount of high risk weather events/conditions?
To put it another way (thanks for the loan of that one Sunny) could 'government penny pinching 101' be a contributing factor in any accident or incident in recent years?
It's just a question i am throwing out there to our 'fair weathered friends' (that really is a sick one) at the BoM. It just seems that a lot of pineapple ends have been pointed at the BoM in recent times, so perhaps we are starting to see the exposure of a significant latent condition? How would the BoM guys and gals rate the capacity, capability, quality and systematic processes of the BoM on the Fujita scale - An EF1 - Weak and ineffective, or an EF5 - robust, hardy and all powerful??
Last edited by 004wercras; 28th Jun 2013 at 12:17. Reason: Avoiding a microburst of elephant urine emanating from the middle of Albo's room
Senate Estimates QONs index!
Well the pollies may have left the building but the RRAT Committee Secretariat are still hard at work . Noticed they've now released the QONs index from Senate Estimates (29/05/13) and there is some significant outstanding QONs of particular relevance to this thread e.g.QON 1:
QONs need to be answered by the 26th of July and if you will remember the Senators were agitating for sooner rather than later, due to the upcoming election.
In regards to Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion it would appear that it still stands (i.e has not been contested or withdrawn) and there are only 12 more sitting days for it to remain uncontested.
And considering the Senate isn't due to sit again till the 20th of August...well I think the chances are the CAO 48.0 instrument is somewhat stalled for a significant amount of time, so well done Sen X.
While on the subject of CAO 48.0 I must confess to underestimating the bookish Greens Senator Rhiannon as white noise that the Senate Estimates didn't need..but after reading the QONs index I have a new found respect for the good Senator
.
And Sen Rhiannon's written QONs on CAO48.0 (I especialy like the QON where she takes it up to the DAS):
Anyway here's the link for the QONs index...fill your boots!
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1314/infra/Final_infra.pdf
Okay Creamy poor choice of words but if you refer to the instrument itself it basically only applies to new/transitional AOC holders from 30 April 2013..
"4 Delayed and transitional taking of effect
4.1 This Order takes effect on 30 April 2013 for the following:
(a) a person who, on or after the commencement of this Order:
(i) applies to CASA for the issue of an AOC; and (ii) as a result of the application — becomes the holder of an AOC (an AOC holder);
(b) each FCM member of a person mentioned in subparagraph (a);
(c) for paragraph 16.1 — each person who:
(i) immediately before the commencement of this Order was the holder
of a flight crew licence; or
(ii) on or after the commencement of this Order becomes the holder of a
flight crew licence."
or otherwise...
"4.3 Subject to paragraph 4.4, this Order applies to an AOC holder (a transitional
AOC holder) on and from 30 April 2016 if the holder has held an AOC since
immediately before the commencement of this Order."
Which leaves plenty of time for Parliament to properly review/repeal/amend certain parts of the instrument.
. Noticed they've now released the QONs index from Senate Estimates (29/05/13) and there is some significant outstanding QONs of particular relevance to this thread e.g.QON 1:
01 CORP 01 MACDONALD Government response to the Committee's Accident
Aviation Report 29/05/2013
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.
Aviation Report 29/05/2013
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.
In regards to Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion it would appear that it still stands (i.e has not been contested or withdrawn) and there are only 12 more sitting days for it to remain uncontested.
2 Senator Xenophon: To move—That Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013, made under subregulations 5(1), 5.55(1) and 215(3), and regulation 210A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, subregulation 11.068(1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, section 4 and subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and paragraph 28BA(1)(b) and subsection 98(4A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, be disallowed. [F2013L00628]
Twelve sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.
Twelve sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.
.While on the subject of CAO 48.0 I must confess to underestimating the bookish Greens Senator Rhiannon as white noise that the Senate Estimates didn't need..but after reading the QONs index I have a new found respect for the good Senator
.
104 CASA 14 RHIANNON CAO 48
Senator RHIANNON: Mr McCormick, does CASA expect tier 2 operators to operate to the flight and duty limits established in CAO 48? I was interested in looking at what some of the representations were that had been made to our office.
But, in 1.12—I am sure you aware of it, but I want to give some context for why I am asking about it—the first dot point talks about the fatigue risk increases, then it goes on to say that the impact on performance 'eventually becomes unacceptable sometime after 16 hours awake'. We are talking about pilots being awake for more than 16 hours. Some of the representations made to us are that pilots may be operating for 19 hours. We are talking about the limits in CAO 48. Would you comment on that. Is that what you are expecting? If you have that there, do you actually expect that those limits will be what people work to?
Mr McCormick: Sorry, I will have to take that on notice and get back to you.
Senator RHIANNON: I can give it to you.
Mr Mrdak: Perhaps the way forward is to take your question on notice. During the dinner break, officials can look at the document just to ascertain what it is, if that is all right, Chairman. I am just trying to find a way forward to assist the senator.
105 CASA 15 RHIANNON CAO 48/Air Operator's Certificate
Senator RHIANNON: And the rest I will put on notice. If CASA does not expect operators to utilise the limits of the CAO 48 based on perceived individual operator risk, how does CASA intend to manage that risk? What head of power is CASA reliant upon in imposing further restrictions on the CAO limits? If CASA is imposing Air Operator's Certificate operations manual limitations, against what standard are those limits assessed and audited? Does CASA expect all, many or most of the tier-2 operators to have limitations imposed on them?
CHAIR: Mr McCormick, where possible, please could we have the answers as direct and short as possible. I know that is a big call for this committee.
Senator RHIANNON: Mr McCormick, does CASA expect tier 2 operators to operate to the flight and duty limits established in CAO 48? I was interested in looking at what some of the representations were that had been made to our office.
But, in 1.12—I am sure you aware of it, but I want to give some context for why I am asking about it—the first dot point talks about the fatigue risk increases, then it goes on to say that the impact on performance 'eventually becomes unacceptable sometime after 16 hours awake'. We are talking about pilots being awake for more than 16 hours. Some of the representations made to us are that pilots may be operating for 19 hours. We are talking about the limits in CAO 48. Would you comment on that. Is that what you are expecting? If you have that there, do you actually expect that those limits will be what people work to?
Mr McCormick: Sorry, I will have to take that on notice and get back to you.
Senator RHIANNON: I can give it to you.
Mr Mrdak: Perhaps the way forward is to take your question on notice. During the dinner break, officials can look at the document just to ascertain what it is, if that is all right, Chairman. I am just trying to find a way forward to assist the senator.
105 CASA 15 RHIANNON CAO 48/Air Operator's Certificate
Senator RHIANNON: And the rest I will put on notice. If CASA does not expect operators to utilise the limits of the CAO 48 based on perceived individual operator risk, how does CASA intend to manage that risk? What head of power is CASA reliant upon in imposing further restrictions on the CAO limits? If CASA is imposing Air Operator's Certificate operations manual limitations, against what standard are those limits assessed and audited? Does CASA expect all, many or most of the tier-2 operators to have limitations imposed on them?
CHAIR: Mr McCormick, where possible, please could we have the answers as direct and short as possible. I know that is a big call for this committee.
):
107 CASA 17 RHIANNON Civil Aviation Order (CAO 48)
1. Can you update me on the progress of the further review of current CASA
standards and policies in relation to the management of fatigue risk?
2. What are the next stages of the process and what is the timing of the
review process?
Written
108 CASA 18 RHIANNON Tier 2 Operators 1.
1. In the case of Tier 2 Operators does CASA expect the operators to operate to the flight and duty limits established in CAO 48?
2. If CASA does not expect Operators to utilise the limits of the CAO 48
based on perceived individual operator risk how does CASA intend to
manage that risk?
3. What Head of Power is CASA reliant upon to impose further restrictions
on the CAO limits?
4. If CASA is imposing Air Operators Certificate Operations Manual
limitations, against what standard are those limits be assessed and
audited?
5. Does CASA expect all, many or most of the Tier 2 operators to have
limitations imposed on them?
6. How many Tier 2 operators are there?
109 CASA 19 RHIANNON Fatigue Risk Management System
1. Can you outline how CASA has established a flight and duty time
limitation system that manages the fatigue risk associated with operating
aircraft and is safe?
2. Does CASA expect many Tier 3 Operators to develop a Fatigue Risk
Management System?
3. Is it the intent that a Fatigue Risk Management System acceptable to
CASA would permit an Operator to utilise flight and duty limitations
outside those contained in the appendices CAO 48?
Written
110 CASA 20 RHIANNON CAO 48 limits
1. I understand there are flight and duty time restrictions you expect to be
imposed on a significant number of Tier 2 Operators that are inside the
limits contained in CAO 48. Do you believe the limits contained in the
CAO are safe when used in Toto? If not, why not?
2. If the answer is yes then why is there a necessity to impose further
restrictions?
3. Why is it safe to permit Tier 3 Operators to use limitations outside the
CAO?
4. Do you accept that fatigue is incurred after prolonged periods of
wakefulness and duty and is only ameliorated by sleep? Do you accept
that flight operations that occur across normal sleeping periods is fatiguing
even when the pilots are able to rest during flight?
5. If CASA has insisted on restrictive limits inside the CAO for the majority
of Tier 2 Operators how can the CAO 48 limits be safe?
Written
111 CASA 21 RHIANNON Research on fatigue and application
1. It has been reported that Mr McCormick did a master's thesis specialising
in fatigue. Is that correct?
2. Did Mr McCormick play a direct role in producing CAO 48?
3. In his previous role in Cathay Pacific Airways did he see evidence of
fatigue affecting flight crew performance in that airline?
4. How did he manage the operational risk presented by the fatigue?
5. Did the airline operate to the limits of the Hong Kong Civil Aviation
Department rules on flight and duty limits or did the airline apply self imposed
limits or apply limits as a result of industrial negotiation?
1. Can you update me on the progress of the further review of current CASA
standards and policies in relation to the management of fatigue risk?
2. What are the next stages of the process and what is the timing of the
review process?
Written
108 CASA 18 RHIANNON Tier 2 Operators 1.
1. In the case of Tier 2 Operators does CASA expect the operators to operate to the flight and duty limits established in CAO 48?
2. If CASA does not expect Operators to utilise the limits of the CAO 48
based on perceived individual operator risk how does CASA intend to
manage that risk?
3. What Head of Power is CASA reliant upon to impose further restrictions
on the CAO limits?
4. If CASA is imposing Air Operators Certificate Operations Manual
limitations, against what standard are those limits be assessed and
audited?
5. Does CASA expect all, many or most of the Tier 2 operators to have
limitations imposed on them?
6. How many Tier 2 operators are there?
109 CASA 19 RHIANNON Fatigue Risk Management System
1. Can you outline how CASA has established a flight and duty time
limitation system that manages the fatigue risk associated with operating
aircraft and is safe?
2. Does CASA expect many Tier 3 Operators to develop a Fatigue Risk
Management System?
3. Is it the intent that a Fatigue Risk Management System acceptable to
CASA would permit an Operator to utilise flight and duty limitations
outside those contained in the appendices CAO 48?
Written
110 CASA 20 RHIANNON CAO 48 limits
1. I understand there are flight and duty time restrictions you expect to be
imposed on a significant number of Tier 2 Operators that are inside the
limits contained in CAO 48. Do you believe the limits contained in the
CAO are safe when used in Toto? If not, why not?
2. If the answer is yes then why is there a necessity to impose further
restrictions?
3. Why is it safe to permit Tier 3 Operators to use limitations outside the
CAO?
4. Do you accept that fatigue is incurred after prolonged periods of
wakefulness and duty and is only ameliorated by sleep? Do you accept
that flight operations that occur across normal sleeping periods is fatiguing
even when the pilots are able to rest during flight?
5. If CASA has insisted on restrictive limits inside the CAO for the majority
of Tier 2 Operators how can the CAO 48 limits be safe?
Written
111 CASA 21 RHIANNON Research on fatigue and application
1. It has been reported that Mr McCormick did a master's thesis specialising
in fatigue. Is that correct?
2. Did Mr McCormick play a direct role in producing CAO 48?
3. In his previous role in Cathay Pacific Airways did he see evidence of
fatigue affecting flight crew performance in that airline?
4. How did he manage the operational risk presented by the fatigue?
5. Did the airline operate to the limits of the Hong Kong Civil Aviation
Department rules on flight and duty limits or did the airline apply self imposed
limits or apply limits as a result of industrial negotiation?
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1314/infra/Final_infra.pdf
Okay Creamy poor choice of words but if you refer to the instrument itself it basically only applies to new/transitional AOC holders from 30 April 2013..
"4 Delayed and transitional taking of effect
4.1 This Order takes effect on 30 April 2013 for the following:
(a) a person who, on or after the commencement of this Order:
(i) applies to CASA for the issue of an AOC; and (ii) as a result of the application — becomes the holder of an AOC (an AOC holder);
(b) each FCM member of a person mentioned in subparagraph (a);
(c) for paragraph 16.1 — each person who:
(i) immediately before the commencement of this Order was the holder
of a flight crew licence; or
(ii) on or after the commencement of this Order becomes the holder of a
flight crew licence."
or otherwise...
"4.3 Subject to paragraph 4.4, this Order applies to an AOC holder (a transitional
AOC holder) on and from 30 April 2016 if the holder has held an AOC since
immediately before the commencement of this Order."
Which leaves plenty of time for Parliament to properly review/repeal/amend certain parts of the instrument.
Last edited by Sarcs; 29th Jun 2013 at 01:48.
And considering the Senate isn't due to sit again till the 20th of August...well I think the chances are the CAO 48.0 instrument is somewhat stalled for a significant amount of time …
The CAO is live law until a sufficient number of sitting days have passed (or the Senate votes on the motion of disallowance). That is likely to take at least a few months.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
........ and the weather is filthy in Sydney ............
A wet and miserable Sydney Saturday afternon ..............
Fire up PC, sniff around the net a bit ................
Discover ...................
BASI REVIEW 1999
http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/up...eview-1999.pdf
Fire up PC, sniff around the net a bit ................
Discover ...................
BASI REVIEW 1999
http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/up...eview-1999.pdf
Last edited by ventus45; 29th Jun 2013 at 13:22.
Which leaves plenty of time for Parliament to properly review/repeal/amend certain parts of the instrument.
If this is disallowed, there goes 2 months work for nothing
Is there any wat we can get a dis-allowance motion on CAsA
