Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Pelair Norfolk Island ditching and the ATSB!
Well Senator X comes through again, got to give him top marks for trying to keep the buggers honest!
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Here's an exercise that took me all of..ohhh ten minutes to do and is very much relevant to the Pelair Norfolk Island ditching and the ATSB.
Should slot quite nicely into (b), (c) and (d)...
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Here's an exercise that took me all of..ohhh ten minutes to do and is very much relevant to the Pelair Norfolk Island ditching and the ATSB.
This small exercise highlights the issue of the ATSB becoming a mere lapdog to the CASA and the damage that the MOU is doing:
Up till now
Timeframe: 01/01/2011- 23/09/2012
Safety issues and actions
Ten years before
Timeframe: 01/01/2001- 23/09/2002
Safety issues and actions
As can be seen there were 8 pages or a 154 entries in the same time frame 10 years before, of those there were 63 entries directly related to CASA. That is in stark contrast from 01/01/2011- 23/09/2012 where we have a total of 10 entries, none of which were directly related to the CASA.
Up till now
Timeframe: 01/01/2011- 23/09/2012
Safety issues and actions
Ten years before
Timeframe: 01/01/2001- 23/09/2002
Safety issues and actions
As can be seen there were 8 pages or a 154 entries in the same time frame 10 years before, of those there were 63 entries directly related to CASA. That is in stark contrast from 01/01/2011- 23/09/2012 where we have a total of 10 entries, none of which were directly related to the CASA.
Terms of Reference
On 13 September 2012, the Senate agreed that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012:
(a) the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by
Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island airport on 18 November 2009;
(b) the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an
aviation accident investigation and the reporting process;
(c) the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in
a timely manner; and
(d) any related matters.
On 13 September 2012, the Senate agreed that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012:
(a) the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by
Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island airport on 18 November 2009;
(b) the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an
aviation accident investigation and the reporting process;
(c) the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in
a timely manner; and
(d) any related matters.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tick Tock Tick Please fix things Nick
In the US the NTSB, the ATSB equivalent, would have held public hearings into the Qantaslink incident, and the airline management would have been cross examined as to how such an unacceptable situation had occurred.
The public would not have been subjected to spin about our wonderful safety standards.
The public would not have been subjected to spin about our wonderful safety standards.
The Manure Express has been gaining speed over the past 10 years while on it's way to it's last station stop - Smoking Hole. CASA, ATSB and the Government have lost the plot, drearily drifting along in cloud bureaucracy hell bent on ignoring the issues and preferring to fatten themselves at the taxpayer trough.
CASA has become bloated with has-been management and out of touch pensioners. Management, the inept Board and the regulators pathetic entry control standards as well as it's penchant for nepotism and cronyism has pushed Australia's safety standards into the crisis zone.
The ATSB, a once respected authority not afraid to paint a true picture of facts, accuracy and recomendations have become as woeful as their counterparts CASA. My opinion is that the damage Dolan has done would take years to repair if the fixing commenced now.
The only hope we have realistically is if Senator Nick gets a bonfire started. If not, well..............tick tock
Last edited by gobbledock; 26th Sep 2012 at 01:31.
One would hope that this pilot will front up to give evidence at the Senate Inquiry:
Ben Sandilands nails the issues that need to come out under parliamentary privilege, here's an example:
Maybe Sandilands could make an appearance himself or does that go against journalistic code of ethics??
The last two paragraphs from Fumblenese's letter shine the light on where all this pony pooh originates from, what a self-effacing load of tripe!
Question: Have we ever had a Transport Minister who is less engaged with the Aviation Safety Portfolio? I know we have some real numbnuts for Ministers and some had some pretty dopey policies but, to give them their due, at least they were interested!!
Tomorrow, the ATSB will release a Final report into an aviation accident at Norfolk Island.
The Final report in it’s current form contains factual errors. These have been brought to the attention of the (name and position withheld), and also the (name and position withheld).
Despite these many areas under dispute having been brought to the attention of both of these men on numerous occasions and requests that the Final report be delayed pending dialogue to resolve the inaccuracies, (name withheld) has determined that this report will be released tomorrow.
(Name withheld) has also let it be known that he is expecting a lot of media attention. I ask what is the point of media attention to a factually incorrect report?
Obviously a report with facts in dispute should not be released. Having spoken to both pilots concerned and as a professional aviator myself, I am left dismayed at the attitude of the ATSB and their willingness to issue such a questionable report. As Minister, I would ask you to stop the release to give all parties involved the opportunity for continued dialogue before it’s release.
At the moment, I am extremely disappointed in the attitude of the ATSB and have been left with great doubts about their investigations. At this point, I would most certainly be advising my colleagues in the airlines that they cannot rely on the ATSB to report the facts nor give them a fair hearing if they are ever involved in an incident.
This is obviously not the reputation that the ATSB should be making for themselves.”
From Planetalking 26/09/2011
Pel-Air report errors ignored by ATSB says expert reviewer | Plane Talking
The Final report in it’s current form contains factual errors. These have been brought to the attention of the (name and position withheld), and also the (name and position withheld).
Despite these many areas under dispute having been brought to the attention of both of these men on numerous occasions and requests that the Final report be delayed pending dialogue to resolve the inaccuracies, (name withheld) has determined that this report will be released tomorrow.
(Name withheld) has also let it be known that he is expecting a lot of media attention. I ask what is the point of media attention to a factually incorrect report?
Obviously a report with facts in dispute should not be released. Having spoken to both pilots concerned and as a professional aviator myself, I am left dismayed at the attitude of the ATSB and their willingness to issue such a questionable report. As Minister, I would ask you to stop the release to give all parties involved the opportunity for continued dialogue before it’s release.
At the moment, I am extremely disappointed in the attitude of the ATSB and have been left with great doubts about their investigations. At this point, I would most certainly be advising my colleagues in the airlines that they cannot rely on the ATSB to report the facts nor give them a fair hearing if they are ever involved in an incident.
This is obviously not the reputation that the ATSB should be making for themselves.”
From Planetalking 26/09/2011
Pel-Air report errors ignored by ATSB says expert reviewer | Plane Talking
Plane talking 26/09/2012:
Together with the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, arguing on a 4 Corners program that the failure of Pel-Air to pass a CASA safety audit immediately after the accident was immaterial, the ATSB report, and the apparent determination to publish it with incomplete or untrue claims, leaves a big question hanging in the air. Why did the safety regulator and safety investigator go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid public disclosure of the state of operations at Pel-Air at the time of the crash?
Together with the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, arguing on a 4 Corners program that the failure of Pel-Air to pass a CASA safety audit immediately after the accident was immaterial, the ATSB report, and the apparent determination to publish it with incomplete or untrue claims, leaves a big question hanging in the air. Why did the safety regulator and safety investigator go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid public disclosure of the state of operations at Pel-Air at the time of the crash?
The last two paragraphs from Fumblenese's letter shine the light on where all this pony pooh originates from, what a self-effacing load of tripe!
Question: Have we ever had a Transport Minister who is less engaged with the Aviation Safety Portfolio? I know we have some real numbnuts for Ministers and some had some pretty dopey policies but, to give them their due, at least they were interested!!
Last edited by Sarcs; 26th Sep 2012 at 23:54.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Australia 737-800 lost by air traffic control for 30 minutes by Ben Sandilands
Latest report from Ben. Looks like this could generate a few questions for the senators?
Virgin Australia 737-800 lost by air traffic control for 30 minutes
by Ben Sandilands
Last Friday morning a Virgin Australia 737-800 with 168 seats left Sydney for Brisbane.
Somewhere near Newcastle or perhaps a but further up the track, after the controller responsible for its departure from Sydney had handed over the flight to the officer responsible for most of its cruise north toward Brisbane, the flight was ‘lost.’
Its trace on the air traffic control screens was ‘inhibited’ as the ATSB puts it in its incident notification.
The action that was taken to render this jet airliner an invisible projectile was deliberate, in that it involves a considered and concise physical action, and horrifically unprofessional, and there are hints that an attempt may have been made to prevent the enormity of the event being properly reported, although it has been reported, and an investigation has begun.
It flew at high speed and high altitude through the busiest airspace in Australian skies, between Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane, without anyone in air traffic control, or any of the many jets of varying sizes that would have been under control in the space it was using, having any knowledge of its presence.
The first anyone knew that there was an invisible passenger jet flying toward Brisbane was when a Virgin Australia pilot called traffic control at a point where he or she would have normally expected to hear from the ATC system prior to entering the airspace nearer its destination.
The seriousness of this extraordinary situation isn’t conveyed by the summary posted this afternoon by the ATSB in notifying that the investigation had been initiated.
It was reported that the aircraft’s details were inadvertently inhibited in the Air Traffic Management system for approximately 30 minutes.
There was a loss of separation assurance.
The investigation is continuing.
There is a long and seldom generally reported history of dangerous and incompetent actions by AirServices Australia.
Its record in recent years is indefensibly sub-standard. But this incident represents a new low.
Let’s put it at its simplest.
Airservices is failing to deliver the fundamentals of a safe and secure air traffic control system.
This incident is the clearest of evidence that its standards are totally untrustworthy, and that no airline, foreign or domestic, can truthfully have any confidence that their passengers, their investments, and their brands, are safe in Australian air traffic controlled skies.
We have deteriorated to the level of being a dangerous embarrassment when a 737-800 can fly for half an hour through one of the 10 busiest air routes on the planet without any other aircraft, or the ATC system, having the faintest inkling that it is there, doing something like 850 kilometres an hour, through airspace which includes A380s and 777s as well as a host of airliners of lesser size, any two of which can be destroyed by the inability of a developed country to provide a professional and well managed air traffic control system.
No doubt the usual fawning excuses will be made. But the facts involved in this particular incident ought to be of the gravest of concern to air travellers and the airlines and our political leaders.
Virgin Australia 737-800 lost by air traffic control for 30 minutes
by Ben Sandilands
Last Friday morning a Virgin Australia 737-800 with 168 seats left Sydney for Brisbane.
Somewhere near Newcastle or perhaps a but further up the track, after the controller responsible for its departure from Sydney had handed over the flight to the officer responsible for most of its cruise north toward Brisbane, the flight was ‘lost.’
Its trace on the air traffic control screens was ‘inhibited’ as the ATSB puts it in its incident notification.
The action that was taken to render this jet airliner an invisible projectile was deliberate, in that it involves a considered and concise physical action, and horrifically unprofessional, and there are hints that an attempt may have been made to prevent the enormity of the event being properly reported, although it has been reported, and an investigation has begun.
It flew at high speed and high altitude through the busiest airspace in Australian skies, between Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane, without anyone in air traffic control, or any of the many jets of varying sizes that would have been under control in the space it was using, having any knowledge of its presence.
The first anyone knew that there was an invisible passenger jet flying toward Brisbane was when a Virgin Australia pilot called traffic control at a point where he or she would have normally expected to hear from the ATC system prior to entering the airspace nearer its destination.
The seriousness of this extraordinary situation isn’t conveyed by the summary posted this afternoon by the ATSB in notifying that the investigation had been initiated.
It was reported that the aircraft’s details were inadvertently inhibited in the Air Traffic Management system for approximately 30 minutes.
There was a loss of separation assurance.
The investigation is continuing.
There is a long and seldom generally reported history of dangerous and incompetent actions by AirServices Australia.
Its record in recent years is indefensibly sub-standard. But this incident represents a new low.
Let’s put it at its simplest.
Airservices is failing to deliver the fundamentals of a safe and secure air traffic control system.
This incident is the clearest of evidence that its standards are totally untrustworthy, and that no airline, foreign or domestic, can truthfully have any confidence that their passengers, their investments, and their brands, are safe in Australian air traffic controlled skies.
We have deteriorated to the level of being a dangerous embarrassment when a 737-800 can fly for half an hour through one of the 10 busiest air routes on the planet without any other aircraft, or the ATC system, having the faintest inkling that it is there, doing something like 850 kilometres an hour, through airspace which includes A380s and 777s as well as a host of airliners of lesser size, any two of which can be destroyed by the inability of a developed country to provide a professional and well managed air traffic control system.
No doubt the usual fawning excuses will be made. But the facts involved in this particular incident ought to be of the gravest of concern to air travellers and the airlines and our political leaders.
HMHB it is probably more likely it will be brought up in the...Estimates daily programs – Parliament of Australia
....although the usual spin and obfuscation will no doubt emanate from the bureau report, lines like:
Or this when it comes to any worthwhile safety recommendations coming out of the incident:
Which seems to be all we get since the 'Beaker', the 'Miller report' and the subsequent 'MOU'.
As an extension of my above exercise take a look at this comparison between the NTSB and the ATSB for safety recommendations submitted:
Safety Recommendation Comparison
NTSB: (methodology)
Safety Recommendations - Search & View
The NTSB issues safety recommendations as a result of its investigation of transportation accidents and other safety concerns. Recommendations usually identify a specific problem uncovered during an investigation or study and specify how to correct the situation. Letters containing the recommendations are directed to the organization best able to act on the problem, whether it be public or private.
ATSB: (methodology)
Safety issues are broadly classified in terms of their level of risk as follows:
Critical safety issue: associated with an intolerable level of risk and generally leading to the immediate issue of a safety recommendation unless corrective safety action has already been taken.
Significant safety issue: associated with a risk level regarded as acceptable only if it is kept as low as reasonably practicable. The ATSB may issue a safety recommendation or a safety advisory notice if it assesses that further safety action may be practicable.
Minor safety issue: associated with a broadly acceptable level of risk, although the ATSB may sometimes issue a safety advisory notice.
Safety action: the steps taken or proposed to be taken by a person, organisation or agency in response to a safety issue.
Year: 2000
NTSB Aviation related SR: 144 ATSB Aviation related SR: 45
NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 119 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 12
Percentage of total: 82.6% Percentage of total: 26.6%
Year: 2005
NTSB Aviation related SR: 35 ATSB Aviation related SR: 19
NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 35 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 6
Percentage of total: 100% Percentage of total: 31.5%
Year: 2010
NTSB Aviation related SR: 168 ATSB Aviation related SR: 11
NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 143 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 0
Percentage of total: 85.1% Percentage of total: 0.0%
It is also obvious from a perusal of other member states of the ICAO that the "Safety Recommendation" methodology is still being embraced, if anything expanded. Meanwhile here in Oz it's being eroded and replaced by spin and obfuscation!
Here's some examples:
Aviation Safety Recommendations
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ort%202010.pdf
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ort%202011.pdf
....although the usual spin and obfuscation will no doubt emanate from the bureau report, lines like:
Conclusion
No organisational or systemic issues that might adversely affect the future safety of aviation operations were identified as a result of this investigation.
No organisational or systemic issues that might adversely affect the future safety of aviation operations were identified as a result of this investigation.
SAFETY ACTION
Whether or not the ATSB identifies safety issues in the course of an investigation, relevant organisations may proactively initiate safety action in order to reduce their safety risk. The ATSB has been advised of the following proactive safety
action in response to this occurrence.
Whether or not the ATSB identifies safety issues in the course of an investigation, relevant organisations may proactively initiate safety action in order to reduce their safety risk. The ATSB has been advised of the following proactive safety
action in response to this occurrence.
As an extension of my above exercise take a look at this comparison between the NTSB and the ATSB for safety recommendations submitted:
Safety Recommendation Comparison
NTSB: (methodology)
Safety Recommendations - Search & View
The NTSB issues safety recommendations as a result of its investigation of transportation accidents and other safety concerns. Recommendations usually identify a specific problem uncovered during an investigation or study and specify how to correct the situation. Letters containing the recommendations are directed to the organization best able to act on the problem, whether it be public or private.
ATSB: (methodology)
Safety issues are broadly classified in terms of their level of risk as follows:
Critical safety issue: associated with an intolerable level of risk and generally leading to the immediate issue of a safety recommendation unless corrective safety action has already been taken.
Significant safety issue: associated with a risk level regarded as acceptable only if it is kept as low as reasonably practicable. The ATSB may issue a safety recommendation or a safety advisory notice if it assesses that further safety action may be practicable.
Minor safety issue: associated with a broadly acceptable level of risk, although the ATSB may sometimes issue a safety advisory notice.
Safety action: the steps taken or proposed to be taken by a person, organisation or agency in response to a safety issue.
Year: 2000
NTSB Aviation related SR: 144 ATSB Aviation related SR: 45
NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 119 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 12
Percentage of total: 82.6% Percentage of total: 26.6%
Year: 2005
NTSB Aviation related SR: 35 ATSB Aviation related SR: 19
NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 35 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 6
Percentage of total: 100% Percentage of total: 31.5%
Year: 2010
NTSB Aviation related SR: 168 ATSB Aviation related SR: 11
NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 143 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 0
Percentage of total: 85.1% Percentage of total: 0.0%
It is also obvious from a perusal of other member states of the ICAO that the "Safety Recommendation" methodology is still being embraced, if anything expanded. Meanwhile here in Oz it's being eroded and replaced by spin and obfuscation!
Here's some examples:
Aviation Safety Recommendations
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ort%202010.pdf
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ort%202011.pdf
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#432. Good one Sarcs.
Speaks volumes.
It's quite a fixing line up: the man with 'not enough vowels' managing 'he who must not named' and "Beeker' : all having tea and biccies with the 'Minister for gross ineptitude'. Lord spare me.
I know; "don't fix it unless it's broke", but man oh man: who is going to clean up the mess and how, is a thing of nightmare. I just hope Pruners are going to have a say at the next inquiry and not sit on their arses and rely someone else to speak up.
The tick is clocking boys and girls, next week is the latest if you want to have a say. Email, post card, beer coaster, hell you could even write as letter should the muse descend.
Steam off.
GD # 429 - The ATSB, a once respected authority not afraid to paint a true picture of facts, accuracy and recommendations have become as woeful as their counterparts CASA. My opinion is that the damage Dolan has done would take years to repair if the fixing commenced now.
I know; "don't fix it unless it's broke", but man oh man: who is going to clean up the mess and how, is a thing of nightmare. I just hope Pruners are going to have a say at the next inquiry and not sit on their arses and rely someone else to speak up.
The tick is clocking boys and girls, next week is the latest if you want to have a say. Email, post card, beer coaster, hell you could even write as letter should the muse descend.
Steam off.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come in spinner
Yes, that old chestnut - "I will take it on notice"!
In other words he means, "I will buy myself a few extra months by dodging a straight answer and getting the voodoo witch doctors to put together a supreme piece of bureaucratic wankery that is filled with spin, evasion and deflections"!
Time to get out the magic spinning top boys!!
In other words he means, "I will buy myself a few extra months by dodging a straight answer and getting the voodoo witch doctors to put together a supreme piece of bureaucratic wankery that is filled with spin, evasion and deflections"!
Time to get out the magic spinning top boys!!
Last edited by gobbledock; 8th Oct 2012 at 11:12. Reason: Trying to avoid the elephant and the spinning top in the room
Too true Gobbles although the same bit of 'spin' and 'bureacratic wankery' (i.e. CASR proposed 91) seems to have created a degree of 'angst' and confusion within Fort Fumble ranks, see here their response to question 159:
Note: The bureaucratic keywords and abbreviations are: informed, on-going, prepare, SCC (and its sub-committees) and RIS.
So did they ATFQ(s)?
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Budget Estimates May 2011
Infrastructure and Transport
Question no.: 159
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Part 91
Proof Hansard Page/s: Written
Senator Heffernan asked:
Part 91 of the proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 2011 aims effect a number of regulations in the aviation industry. The first discussion paper was published by CASA in 1999. It has been followed at various times by a NPRM in 2001 and several subsequent industry reviews. The existing draft of Part 91 was prepared after those reviews were “frozen” in 2006.
1) How does CASA justify leaving the industry in limbo for 11 years? Has CASA
provided explanations to the industry and a proposed timeline so that the industry can prepare and plan for changes to its regulations?
2) How much has this lengthy review process cost?
3) What is the estimated cost of implementing these changes?
Answer:
1) CASA has kept the industry informed of progress with Part 91 on an on-going basis.
In addition to postings on the CASA website, updates are given regularly at meetings of the Standards Consultative Committee and its sub-committees. Pilots and operators will be given sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations before they enter into force. Training and education publications will be developed and briefings given to the industry to prepare them for the introduction of the regulations.
2) CASA does not itemise costs for individual parts or development of individual pieces of legislation.
3) In accordance with established procedure, the estimated cost to implement the Part 91 changes will be made public in a Regulation Impact Statement.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Budget Estimates May 2011
Infrastructure and Transport
Question no.: 159
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Part 91
Proof Hansard Page/s: Written
Senator Heffernan asked:
Part 91 of the proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 2011 aims effect a number of regulations in the aviation industry. The first discussion paper was published by CASA in 1999. It has been followed at various times by a NPRM in 2001 and several subsequent industry reviews. The existing draft of Part 91 was prepared after those reviews were “frozen” in 2006.
1) How does CASA justify leaving the industry in limbo for 11 years? Has CASA
provided explanations to the industry and a proposed timeline so that the industry can prepare and plan for changes to its regulations?
2) How much has this lengthy review process cost?
3) What is the estimated cost of implementing these changes?
Answer:
1) CASA has kept the industry informed of progress with Part 91 on an on-going basis.
In addition to postings on the CASA website, updates are given regularly at meetings of the Standards Consultative Committee and its sub-committees. Pilots and operators will be given sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations before they enter into force. Training and education publications will be developed and briefings given to the industry to prepare them for the introduction of the regulations.
2) CASA does not itemise costs for individual parts or development of individual pieces of legislation.
3) In accordance with established procedure, the estimated cost to implement the Part 91 changes will be made public in a Regulation Impact Statement.
So did they ATFQ(s)?
Last edited by Sarcs; 8th Oct 2012 at 11:24. Reason: plural
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confusion, trickery and Private Parts 91
Note: The bureaucratic keywords and abbreviations are: informed, on-going, prepare, SCC (and its sub-committees) and RIS.
So did they ATFQ(s)?
So lets disect the CASA answers shall we;
Answer:
1) CASA has kept the industry informed of progress with Part 91 on an on-going basis.
In addition to postings on the CASA website, updates are given
regularly at meetings of the Standards Consultative Committee and its sub-committees. Pilots and operators will be given
sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations before they enter into force. Training and education publications will be developed and
briefings given to the industry to prepare them for the introduction of the
regulations.
In addition to postings on the CASA website, updates are given
regularly at meetings of the Standards Consultative Committee and its sub-committees. Pilots and operators will be given
sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations before they enter into force. Training and education publications will be developed and
briefings given to the industry to prepare them for the introduction of the
regulations.
2) CASA does not itemise costs for individual parts or development of individual pieces of legislation.
3) In accordance with established procedure, the estimated cost to implement the Part 91 changes will be made public in a Regulation Impact Statement
Starting to see a pattern here, no wonder JQ was done in by a criminal crackhead and RR a couple of dodgy AWIs:
Now that's more like the regulator we all know and love!
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Budget Estimates May 2011
Infrastructure and Transport
Question no.: 141
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Section 42ZC(6) Regulation
Proof Hansard Page/s: 67 (26/05/2011)
Senator Abetz asked:
Senator ABETZ: Can I ask you then, in general terms, for what purposes is an instrument issued under Section 42Z(c)6 of the regulations? Why was that countenanced?
Mr McCormick: I think we will have to take that on notice.
NB Double speak for I have NFI!
Answer:
In general terms, regulation 42ZC(6) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 provides that CASA may, in appropriate cases, and subject to such conditions as may be necessary, authorise a person, who is not otherwise licensed to do so, to carry out specified maintenance on an Australian aircraft in Australian territory, or specified maintenance on an aircraft component or aircraft material in Australian territory.
The provision countenances such authorisations only in circumstances where: the maintenance involved is specified with reasonable particularity; the person authorised has the skills and ability to carry out the maintenance competently and the maintenance is carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be required to ensure it is carried out safely.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Budget Estimates May 2011
Infrastructure and Transport
Question no.: 141
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Section 42ZC(6) Regulation
Proof Hansard Page/s: 67 (26/05/2011)
Senator Abetz asked:
Senator ABETZ: Can I ask you then, in general terms, for what purposes is an instrument issued under Section 42Z(c)6 of the regulations? Why was that countenanced?
Mr McCormick: I think we will have to take that on notice.
NB Double speak for I have NFI!
Answer:
In general terms, regulation 42ZC(6) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 provides that CASA may, in appropriate cases, and subject to such conditions as may be necessary, authorise a person, who is not otherwise licensed to do so, to carry out specified maintenance on an Australian aircraft in Australian territory, or specified maintenance on an aircraft component or aircraft material in Australian territory.
The provision countenances such authorisations only in circumstances where: the maintenance involved is specified with reasonable particularity; the person authorised has the skills and ability to carry out the maintenance competently and the maintenance is carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be required to ensure it is carried out safely.
Gee that's really nice that part 91.
So if I have an engine failure and succeed in making a forced landing and knock over a single fence post I can be prosecuted because by definition I wasn't flying at sufficient height to avoid damage to persons or property?
What next? Is CASA going to repeal Newtons laws?
So if I have an engine failure and succeed in making a forced landing and knock over a single fence post I can be prosecuted because by definition I wasn't flying at sufficient height to avoid damage to persons or property?
What next? Is CASA going to repeal Newtons laws?
Last edited by Sunfish; 8th Oct 2012 at 21:27.
So I take it that all single engine piston ops to/from Essendon are about to be illegal then.
And I imagine that every single piston to/from Moorabbin will need to be routed through a 'lane' that heads straight for the coast? Not a lot of options once you clear the golf courses. Especially to the north west.
And I imagine that every single piston to/from Moorabbin will need to be routed through a 'lane' that heads straight for the coast? Not a lot of options once you clear the golf courses. Especially to the north west.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who us ? - Nah.
Plane Talking latest.
The audit is a clear, signed confession of CASA compliance in the Norfolk ditching. CASA 'must be satisfied', there is an acknowledgement within the audit that CASA had approved minimum, 'technically legal' fuel planning procedure, poor check/training etc. etc and then have the hide to blame the operator, the pilot, the ATSB and the cleaners cat. The Senate needs the entire, unvarnished audit series for this company. That will tell a tale.
Sure there is enough pooh to go around, but always remember who approved, accepted and over looked the operation, who conducted the audit, who passed on the 'pertinent' information to the ATSB. Yes, it's all very 'unfortunate', ain't it.
Wasn't going to vomit, but I might indulge myself this time.
The audit is a clear, signed confession of CASA compliance in the Norfolk ditching. CASA 'must be satisfied', there is an acknowledgement within the audit that CASA had approved minimum, 'technically legal' fuel planning procedure, poor check/training etc. etc and then have the hide to blame the operator, the pilot, the ATSB and the cleaners cat. The Senate needs the entire, unvarnished audit series for this company. That will tell a tale.
Sure there is enough pooh to go around, but always remember who approved, accepted and over looked the operation, who conducted the audit, who passed on the 'pertinent' information to the ATSB. Yes, it's all very 'unfortunate', ain't it.
Wasn't going to vomit, but I might indulge myself this time.
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Oct 2012 at 04:05. Reason: Help GD - just threw up an elephant. Yuk.
Sheessh...the way this Inquiry is heading the good Senators will be able to charge admission for the hearing(s). Got a feeling it will be a packed house when the regulator and bureau are being interrogated!
“Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.” by anonymous
“Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.” by anonymous
Too true HMHB...yes the calendar is filling up...let's see submissions in by tomorrow...16th Supp Estimates hmmm anyone posed any question clangers for the Senators..then 17th submissions published...22nd world popcorn day and the Senate Inquiry hearings (although I have strong suspicion there maybe more than one day of hearings).
Then November the 19th is the Hempel Coroner's findings and ten days later the Senate Inquiry Report...well HMHB have I missed anything??
Then November the 19th is the Hempel Coroner's findings and ten days later the Senate Inquiry Report...well HMHB have I missed anything??
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
November is a very full month and bet the lights will be on late in Camberra and Brisbane. I'm guessing there will be some sleepless nights for some and chess game updates along the way.
Sarcs, thanks for detailing the dates. I don't think you've missed anything. Enjoy the popcorn.
Sarcs, thanks for detailing the dates. I don't think you've missed anything. Enjoy the popcorn.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 11th Oct 2012 at 18:15.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMHB - I don't think you've missed anything.
The ladders are getting slippery (pardon the pun) and the snakes 'snakier'; we can only hope to watch from afar. What price being a fly on the wall, now that would beat popcorn.
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Oct 2012 at 20:17.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mememememem
Yes, it will be interesting to see how 'Beaker' handles this one, and what the 'substance' (possibly brown) of the report will be?
ASA and CASA CEO??
ASA and CASA CEO??
Last edited by gobbledock; 12th Oct 2012 at 01:20. Reason: Dodging government muppets in the room
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things that make you Hmmm?!
The inquiry into the ditching was, I had hoped, going to make a difference; seems not.
The 'Old man' at the pub last night was a bit down, "wuzzup Pops" says I. It's hard to get the bugger to say much, but eventually the story emerges.
"There is a mountain of submissions being made to the committee, many of these are 'tough love' and will be difficult to handle". "So what" say I: "that's what we pay for, ain't it".
He shakes his old head and smiles at me, sad like. I had to buy him another pint, "No mate, they are only accepting the submissions they want for publication; the rest go confidential". "That's OK" says I, "ain't it? the tough ones will be dealt with".
Another pint disappears: "You don't get it Junior, if a submission is not published, neither is the response: how to shut down the inquiry 101, in a parliament near you". Another shake of the head; "buy me a pint and forget about the Senate Inquiry son; it's a done deal".
It was a very quiet walk home.
The 'Old man' at the pub last night was a bit down, "wuzzup Pops" says I. It's hard to get the bugger to say much, but eventually the story emerges.
"There is a mountain of submissions being made to the committee, many of these are 'tough love' and will be difficult to handle". "So what" say I: "that's what we pay for, ain't it".
He shakes his old head and smiles at me, sad like. I had to buy him another pint, "No mate, they are only accepting the submissions they want for publication; the rest go confidential". "That's OK" says I, "ain't it? the tough ones will be dealt with".
Another pint disappears: "You don't get it Junior, if a submission is not published, neither is the response: how to shut down the inquiry 101, in a parliament near you". Another shake of the head; "buy me a pint and forget about the Senate Inquiry son; it's a done deal".
It was a very quiet walk home.
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Oct 2012 at 20:15.