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

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

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

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Old 24th Oct 2012, 02:47
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Hansard – James: Pel-Air was known to CASA for particular deficiencies in its operation, but that too was not acted upon. Then, after the accident, there was more inaction, this time in the form of the ATSB not disclosing in the accident report the findings of the Pel-Air special audit, amongst other things.

Hansard – James: I had available to me, it strikes me as astoundingly hypocritical of the ATSB to have made these criticisms when the ATSB has failed to do its job after nearly three years and with almost unlimited resources.
ATSB cannot carry the sole responsibility. The ATSB commissioner is as much at the mercy of the "Authority" (mystique of air safety myth) as anyone else without experience of air operations. Dolan is a 'professional' public servant, not an experienced yachty or airman. Read then read again his mumblings, then read the "he who cannot be shamed' tirade again. "This is what we the 'authority' believe and want to made into truth, trust us". And the purblind fool did. QED.

CASA approved the TC system which failed to pick up normalised deficiencies across the board, FCOL the bloody ex CP nearly ran out noise at Norfolk as did James. The TC may have abandoned the pilot, but so did the new CASA approved whiz bang CP, the one CASA are (sic) delighted with.

Where did the new and delightful CP say 'hey, these flights need a bit more thought; we can't land at Fiji (fuel account embarrassment) we can't land in Noumea (regulatory embarrassment) we can't operate at economical altitudes (RVSM embarrassment) there is a trend of running low on fuel developing and no one seems to be able to work out a simple radius of action fuel plan'. Time for changes ? you bet. Did they happen - No and yet this Muppet so 'delighted' CASA, they hired him to oversight more CASA approved operations. Spare me.

Did DJ stuff it up – Yup, but he had help; lots of it. Trouble is the 'help' was tucked in bed with Mum at the time or at the pub with the boys. CASA approved the systems, CASA approved the delightful CP.

Where is the CP statement, where is the rest of the flight crew statement and where the hell is the company response.

Sunny, thank you for the overboard briefing, saved me doing it, Oh, and by the way, "Looped around his wrist", should have wrapped it around his Willy, could have gone out with bang then.

Last edited by Kharon; 24th Oct 2012 at 02:50.
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 04:58
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
We do NOT take punitive action, but when we do!",

Mr McCormick: While there are undoubtedly violations of the regulations, we do not take punitive action against anybody and we would like to always think that when we do take punitive action there is a very strong reason for it. So we try and rehabilitate the person in this case.*
I would have thought ruining dozens of businesses and careers a punitive action. What do you call it John.

In my case you [casa] have even obstructed my "rehabilitation" or is this it.

CHAIR: That filing prompted the email that said, 'If we find ourselves in the AAT or a court, we'll look a bit foolish if we the regulator have to say that there are two conflicting views, one which has to be wrong, and we have done nothing to rectify that over the years, which is very untidy.' Without dobbing the poor bugger in who sent this, he is very close to you*
I hold several similar emails, which apparently by a slight oversight on your part failed to be produced at the AAT. But then that would have been A Ana-stasi's responsibility. Not much has changed or is it the tactics that have changed.
Stan van de Wiel is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 06:57
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 207
The committee didn't really focus on this but I am interested in what people think about how not being RVSM compliant impacts on medevacs. For normal operations you just have to soak the extra fuel burn but in the case of a medevac can the pilot declare med 1 or med 2 to get an RVSM waiver? If not why not?

In this case being able to cruise in the RVSM airspace would have allowed the PIC to take full fuel.

In the long term though what oversight do CASA apply to regular EMS operators to ensure that they are not using med catagories to avoid capabilities, such as RVSM.
Roger Greendeck is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 07:21
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 26
What is the SGR for a Westwind at LRC at non RVSM levels as opposed to Normal Cruise at FL350?

Kharon; two flights a trend does not make. What evidence is there of a culture of running tight on fuel in these ops? One flight from the the Ex CP and then Fleet Manager (where he landed above the legal requirements but without alternate fuel) and the accident flight? Does that really make a trend? The audit itself couldn't find recurring instances so what insight do you use to identify a trend?

Anyone who knows the CP at the time of the accident would know that he was the last person that Pel-Air or Rex would want involved in a CASA investigation involving them. The idea that he is part of a consipracy to protect Pel-Air is hilarious. If he popped up involved in an investigation involving Rex the mountain of letters going to CASA from Baxter Road would require a B Double to deliver.
Lester Burnham is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 08:36
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 302
Even if James had NFI about using the auto pilot and sending the FO out of harms way to assist, the FO should have done it, as a matter of 'trained' to do so. They will only do what they have trained to do as per the CASA approved system of training.
As I've said from day1. What did the F/O contribute to the flight? Apparently she showed no interest in the flight planning. Was she just xxkgs of excess SLF?
Even if James had not wanted to involve her (why I would not know) SHE should have taken the INITIATIVE and INSISTED on checking his figures.

She is not without blame and had a RESPONSIBILITY to check his figures.

Hell. In the past I've grabbed F/O's by the ear and ORDERED them to check my figures.

It is a CREWED aeroplane, is it not?

Last edited by dogcharlietree; 24th Oct 2012 at 08:38.
dogcharlietree is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 08:42
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 302
On Friday 28th June 1996, an industry meeting was held at the Sydney Airport Sheraton hotel. The purpose of the meeting was to educate the industry about the new direction of civil aviation safety in Australia. There the CASA disciples talked on such things as "Mission Statement", "Timing and Resources", "Regulatory Balance" etc. In amongst all this, they put up a slide entitled: "The situation CASA inherited". The speaker at this time was a George A. Wood, Manager, Regulatory Role Program. He stated that he had been in the Aviation regulatory role since 1975, (ie over 20 years) and he spoke about a situation they (CASA) have "inherited" and that they will now fix it.
Will this be another re-run of an old movie?
dogcharlietree is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 10:02
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 606
Stan said:

I hold several similar emails, which apparently by a slight oversight on your [CASAs] part failed to be produced at the AAT.


Stan...did you think of providing the Chair of the Inquiry with a submission about the material you're referring to? May help to prove what a lot of horsesh!t the idiots from Fort Fumble have so far presented to the Inquiry.

Then again, having watched the performance of the idiots from the Fort the other day, there's probably little more evidence needed by the Senators to prove that point beyond any shadow of a doubt.

PS. What Sunfish said!
SIUYA is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 20:02
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Square pegs

LB #530 - The idea that he is part of a conspiracy to protect Pel-Air is hilarious.
Yes it is, but that is not what is being suggested in the Hansard – nor is it where the enquiry looking; and that, is no where near funny.

Lester – I would suggest that the less mention of the CP here the better; the Senate is well and truly onto it, reading Hansard you could surmise that a serious amount of 'other' information is in play. The 'official' reports have been under fairly intensive scrutiny, by experts and the three 'fuel shy' flights acknowledged, are viewed as the tip of the ice berg. Perhaps your hero is an experienced man in very short haul 'local' area operations, in daylight hours, with a nice little roster, well maintained aircraft and not a PNR in sight: but, does that count as experience towards managing the type of operation being discussed i.e. long haul, ad-hoc, on demand (24/7) international. Think about the answer, because there are only two reasonable possibilities.

Hansard - Aherne: I believe the committee should determine whether there has in fact been an attempt to breach the TSI Act 2003 CASA, by not responding as a directly involved party that significant deficiencies with the operator and its manual existed at the time of the accident and that the CASA special audit identified many deficiencies, and by knowingly allowing the ATSB to make the statements that the operators, procedures and manuals complied with the regulations, has acted intentionally and deliberately and has omitted major oversight deficiencies which have had an adverse effect on the safety of the travelling public and their confidence in our aviation safety administration. I believe the evidence is striking and the question of who has orchestrated these critical omissions on the Australian public now needs to be answered.

Hansard – Quinn: What is unusual is when they are very large ones like a breach of section 28BE of the Civil Aviation Act where the organisation and the accountable manager has inadequate oversight of the operation—that is significant—and also aspects of CAR 217, which is their check and training authorisation.

Last edited by Kharon; 24th Oct 2012 at 20:22. Reason: To highlight just one very small elepahant
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 20:58
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Hansard – Quinn: What is unusual is when they are very large ones like a breach of section 28BE of the Civil Aviation Act where the organisation and the accountable manager has inadequate oversight of the operation—that is significant—and also aspects of CAR 217, which is their check and training authorisation.
The previous senate inquiry was concerned with CAR217! Might want an update on progress.

The more I read of these snippets the worse it gets. A critical report from the Barry Hempels inquest would be the last thing needed now.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 21:47
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
HMHB in regards to the Hempel Inquest it is interesting to note the following passage from page 55 of the hansard:

Mr Dolan: When, nearly 3½ years ago, I joined the newly independent ATSB as chief commissioner, we had over 100 aviation investigations on hand, including four that we classified as level 2—so substantial investigations requiring major and continuing use of our resources. We were averaging about 18 months for the completion of investigations, with some serious outliers in that. We had more work on hand than we knew how to deal with, and we would normally expect in any given year to get one of those level 2 investigations. So we had a lot more work than we were used to. That led to delays in a range of reports and, as new investigations came in, the shifting of resources to different priorities as they arose. It is clear that, in managing that allocation of resources to always-shifting priorities, we did not give enough attention to getting to an expeditious conclusion of this Norfolk Island report. However, that is the context in which that happened.

Senator FAWCETT: Did you have an underspend in your budget this year, last year or the year before?

Mr Dolan: There have only been three complete financial years now. In the first year—in the first of my years of stewardship of the organisation—we had a slight underspend. In the last two years we have had slight overspends, but always within less than one per cent of our allocated budget.

Senator FAWCETT: You have not considered outsourcing any of the work or insourcing extra capacity to expedite the production of reports?

Mr Dolan: Our resources are largely tied up in maintaining our existing investigative capability, who are permanent staff of the organisation. We have a longstanding view that in almost all circumstances it is better to have, if possible, the range of expertise available to us on a permanent basis and therefore immediately available than to rely on potentially risky external outsourcers.

Senator FAWCETT: I am not talking about normal operations. I am talking about a situation where you have a budget underspend and a clear excess of work. Was it even considered? That is all I am asking.

Mr Dolan: In that small underspend, no, we did not consider it.
Which could explain, along with CASA's influence, why they duck shoved the Hempel accident even though according to ICAO Annex 13 they were essentially obligated to investigate. Also the above shows that they had an underspend for 2008 and again under Annex 13 if they are snowed under they can contract a foreign authority to carry out an investigation on their behalf, so essentially they had no excuse!

But that is an aside but it is interesting that Fawcett brought it up, anyway back to the main game.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 21:54
  #511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
What does underspending achieve? Exec Bonuses?

Now I understand that EASA has a lot of capacity for such investigations. The UK CAA are always after work. The Australian dollar would go a long way to buy competent resource to clear the back log if they couldn't get Australians.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 22:17
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Yes but then they would essentially lose control of an investigation and it is becoming abundantly clear that the bureau's puppet masters don't want that to happen!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2012, 22:55
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Run, but ya can't hide.

HMHB # 535 - The more I read of these snippets the worse it gets. A critical report from the Barry Hempels inquest would be the last thing needed now.
If the Hempel debacle don't put the final bullet in the dying animal, the Canley Vale one will. Same cast and crew for Airtex, Pel Air and Canley Vale, similar ATSB reports. 'he who must not be named' little mate must be getting writers cramp, all that dictating. Nah, they have must talk to write equipment by now.

Sunfish # 520 - If I was a CASA or ATSB manager, I would want to be looking for a new job right now.
But not a new ar#$*@ hole (new pineapple sized one recently issued). Current information supports your supposition. But wait; what if legal action taken against, will that put a hole in the holiday budget?. Once they leave the castle, they are fair game.

Last edited by Kharon; 24th Oct 2012 at 23:08. Reason: Just felt good, somehow.
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2012, 00:34
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
Once they leave the castle, they are fair game.
Oh t'were that really so old son. That is, to a satisfactory conclusion.

In the stocks etc rotten fruit etc
Fantome is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2012, 01:21
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The willing accomplice

In Chapter 16 of Original Intent, entitled "Revisionism: A Willing Accomplice," Barton, after defining "historical revisionism" as "a process by which historical fact is intentionally ignored, distorted, or mis portrayed in order to manoeuvre public opinion toward a specific political agenda or philosophy," goes on to present and provide examples of nine methods employed by those who he accuses of being the "revisionists."
From Pel Air to Airtex. Quite a leap, even for a willing accomplice. Is the Senate starting to join the dots? seems that way.

CHAIR: Someone in CASA looked at Mr James's qualifications to be doing the job he was doing?

Mr McCormick: That was part of the accident investigation.

CHAIR: But someone did that?

Mr McCormick: That is correct.

CHAIR: The evidence we have received is that the person who did that was not actually qualified to do it. Is that wrong?

Mr McCormick: That the CASA officer was not qualified to investigate? That would be incorrect.

Senator STERLE: That is not what we took, Chair. I think you wanted to take your questions to the chief pilot.

CHAIR: Yes, I will come to the chief pilot. Regarding the man who did the audit at Bankstown, what is his name?

Mr McCormick: There were 16—

CHAIR: But there would have been someone—

Mr McCormick: inspectors put on that audit. The lead was Mr Roger Chambers, who was the acting manager at Bankstown.

CHAIR: What is his role now, at this minute?

Mr McCormick: He is the acting manager of the Sydney office—the combined office of Mascot and Bankstown.

CHAIR: When did he conclude that audit?

Mr McCormick: It is on the actual audit itself. It says 8 January 2009; it should say 8 January 2010.

CHAIR: The commencement date and the finishing date are probably what we are after.
Mr McCormick: It completed on 8 January 2010.
Because the portrayal of history so affects current policy, some groups have found it advantageous to their political agenda to distort historical facts intentionally. Those particularly adept at this are termed "revisionists." David Barton – Original Intent.

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Oct 2012 at 01:23. Reason: Not a bad book either.
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2012, 04:46
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,613
The more I read here, the more concerned for the state of aviation in Australia I get.

I stand by what I said: if I were a CASA FOI or above, I would get out of the organization now.

When the next major accident occurs CASA may survive by throwing another James to the wolves.

The one after that will see the organization try and foist blame onto one of its low level managers- most probably successfully.

However the one after that will see Government take an axe to CASA.

This process may be short circuited if the next FAA audit is bad enough Or there is a near miss incident sufficiently grave to alarm EASA or the FAA.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2012, 05:08
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 26
Kharon; I think you may have verballed me. You didn't happen to work for the Queensland coppers in the 1980s did you? I have no heros and I don't think I have done since I was 10 years old. If I did have heros, I certainly wouldn't find any associated with this sorry tale, either before during or after the accident. My post was regarding the heavy implication of impropriety in recruiting the CP here, on other blogs and in the transcript of the inquiry itself. I find this highly amusing for the reasons I listed. I don't recall making any comment on the suitability or otherwise of the CP.

If you have knowledge of the in camera proceedings then to you. I don't think you should be talking about them here but hey, we all have different opinions on these things.

I find this concentration on the Senate inquiry amusing, particularly from someone like yourself who has been around the traps. I find it very refreshing to see optimism in someone of your experience, but I say that through the prism of my own cynicism. History tells us that the purpose of these inquiries is to shovel out shit higher than the other blokes, the person with the highest pile wins. What he wins is stalemate, or the warm comforting feeling of having his arse covered.

Mr James is shovelling it because he wants to spread the blame (he has the most reason to shovel, who could blame him). The Coalition Senators are shovelling it because they are hoping to embarass Albo. The ALP Sentators are shovelling it because they want to protect Albo. CASA are shovelling it because they want to protect themselves. The ATSB are shovelling it because CASA are and they don't want to miss out (might impact budget you know). Messrs Quinn and Ahearne are shovelling it for many reasons, at least some of which are related to the temperature at which revenge is best served. Senator X is the only one that doesn't seem to be shovelling it, but maybe he has a front end loader that we don't know about?

We could have an earth shattering result from all of this shovelling, but my guess is that it will peter out to nothing and we will all be left wondering how the hell the ATSB came up with that report.
Lester Burnham is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2012, 06:12
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60


You didn't happen to work for the Queensland coppers in the 1980s did you?
You must not confuse the fact that he flew PIGs (on fish freight runs once or twice), that his boots do appear awfully big at times that he could down gallons of Kilkenny ale standing in his 'front office' and that he talks out of the side of his mouth with any insinuation or conclusion that he worked for any constabulary anywhere anytime.
Fantome is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2012, 06:36
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,613
Lester:

I find this concentration on the Senate inquiry amusing, particularly from someone like yourself who has been around the traps.
You won't find it so amusing in hindsight after we have Three hundred dead Australians thanks to the regulatory Swiss cheese holes lining up with the AsA holes that line up with the maintenance holes all of which will have been chronicled previously by the ATSB
Sunfish is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2012, 06:45
  #520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Misogynistic me

Lester – No verballing, furballing or any other kind of balling intended, I shall have to remember not to look at my watch or scratch my nuts, lest I offend. So pleased you are amused, just made my day that did.

Next:-

Thankyou Fantome, the Bar Room Barristers meeting is tonight, I'll be sure to pass your regards on to the old man. He kind of agrees with LB that it's a shit shovelling exercise but acknowledges that even if we just manage, without embarrassing ourselves to get at least the findings related to life vest and whistles out to the world, something would be achieved. (Passenger safety or something).

Should be a good meeting tonight, lots to discuss. I shall choose the right moment to inform him that his boots look large. Perhaps it may be politic to PM you the response; in camera like.

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Oct 2012 at 06:49. Reason: Chuckles not conducive to good grammar; spelling either. Elepahant, elepahant
Kharon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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