Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

[dogcharlietree]

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?

[SIUYA]

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!

[Kharon]

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.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

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.

[Sarcs]

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.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

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.

[Sarcs]

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!

[Kharon]

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.

[Fantome]

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

[Kharon]

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.

[Sunfish]

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.

[Lester Burnham]

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 **** 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.

[Fantome]

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.

[Sunfish]

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

[Kharon]

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 **** 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.

[Lookleft]

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 there hasn't been 300 but the holes have already lined up and the brand of cheese has been Seaview, Monarch and Transair. It has only been by the narrowest of margins that it wasn't also Hazelton(near loss of control at Bathurst). This has been the third hull loss of a Westwind in Australia that I can recall.

Senator X has been doing a mighty job to bring all the safety issues into the public arena with the various enquiries. Until the Government of whatever persuasion is prepared to act then it will just be one inquiry after another. I was hoping for big things to occur after the first Senate inquiry but the government response was simply "we have given lots of money to CASA and safety is our number one priority".

When we lose an RPT jet then the inquiries will simply be the crumbs that line the path that show us how we got here.

[Creampuff]

The first of the documents tabled on Monday by Mr Quinn is titled:

Regulatory Policy – CEO-PN001-2004
CASA’s Industry Sector Priorities and Classification of Civil Aviation Activities

I had a double-take, but there it is in black and white:

1.5 This policy is a departure from the classification of operations scheme currently specified in subregulations 2(6) and 2(7) and regulation 206 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, and lays the foundation for the regulatory reclassification of civil air operations that will be specified in Part 119 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

It’s difficult to know which of the implications I find more disturbing:

1. That CASA appears not to comprehend that subregulations 2(6) and 2(7) and regulation 206 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 say nothing about how CASA may or may not allocate its resources to deal with the risks arising from the various operations in the various classifications. There might be less confusion inside CASA, but for 3 below.

2. That CASA appears unabashedly to believe that it is appropriate for a regulatory authority to depart from what it (albeit mistakenly) understands the law to require, by promulgating a ‘policy’ to that effect.

3. That CASA continues to be able to develop and revise pages and pages of policy, year after year, about what CASA would like the law about classification of operations to say and do, and continues to manage to push new regulations through the legislative process, but, in the 16 years since Commissioner Staunton recommended that urgent consideration be given to amending or replacing regulation 206 to overcome the problems identified by the Commissioner, CASA has been unable to push through anything – not a single change to a single syllable in the regulations – to overcome those problems. That’s despite a recommendation which cost nine lives and a $20million inquiry.

However, by far the most disturbing implication of the evidence given by the CASA witnesses at the Pel Air hearings is confirmation of something I have been fearing for some time. It appears to me that:

4. Nobody inside CASA takes responsibility for the progress and resolution of issues that arose before they arrived in the job. It’s a neat trick: Fred was in position X and responsible for issue Q in 2003. Fred swaps positions with Bob in 2007, and Bob disclaims responsibility for issue Q in 2012 because it arose in 2003 when Bob wasn’t in the job. Fred disclaims responsibility because he’s not in that job: Bob is. George turns up as CEO in 2009 and disclaims responsibility for anything that was unresolved when he arrived. Meanwhile, Fred, Bob, Ted and Alice have all occupied various positions on the executive merry-go-round for over a decade, with the occasional temporary dismount, and all are perfectly well aware of all the issues that should have been resolved by the organisation in the previous decade or so.

5. Nobody outside CASA takes responsibility for changing 4. That’s the real killer.

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.

Sadly, that’s my guess too, LB.

[AEROMEDIC]

Hmmmmm.... the music is playing. Better position myself for a chair.

[aroa]

Zappo.!!...another flashback?

Is this new CEO PN etc that ends in "....Classification of Civil Aviation Activities". That sounds to me like the 2012 version of saying "Classification of Operations Policy" As adopted by the Minister and the Board in 1997. Which was then ignored by the Regulati...and the mess continued ...and will still continue with this new royal edict.

Its already been made clear the ..."policy is not law" and that "bad law" SS, and "buggers muddle" MT.. "206 can properly be described as a section dealing with definitions..it neither empowers or restricts any particular operation"..it is unlawful, as it is based on an expired law, with cross references to a now non-existent Act. Fice AAT 03/2011

16 years on from Staunton.. Great progress being made here, folks
Settle back in yr rocking chairs and watch another decade slide by.

[Sunfish]

The academic name of what has happened is called diffusion of responsibility. When an accident happens it is thus nobody's fault.

CASA needs to apply its favourite "strict liability" tag to its own activities.