Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

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.

The senators made very clear they are responsible and will be held accountable. If the senators do nothing now they will be no better than the casa and Atsb.

The defense of 'big boys did it and ran away' is hilarious. Some execs might want to read their pds and check what they are accountable for.

[Creampuff]

The senators made very clear they are responsible and will be held accountable.

Whom, precisely, did the senators identify as being responsible, through what mechanism will those persons be held accountable, and what will happen to those persons?

Being criticised in senate committee report is like being whipped with a piece wet lettuce. Do you think the minister will be inclined to do anything in response?

[Kharon]

CP# 548 – As always, first rate post, clearly highlighting the serious, chronic issues at the 'top table'; and I agree that there is a need for change. To do that some serious 'executive willpower' (top down) is needed and that, is hard to come by.

Could the problem could be resolved from 'grass roots' level up? There is a clear picture of 'how' the system is operating available; Mr. Quinn in his evidence points the way, this is (strangely enough) supported by CASA statements and argument later in the hearing.

The 'executive' decides a required outcome (James guilty, Pel Air no blame) this decision is transmitted to the 'willing accomplice', simple instruction; "sort this out my way". From then, no matter what, the die is cast.

Hansard – Quinn: CASA did not provide Captain James with the special audit information in the AAT in 2010. The letter to Captain James from CASA advising him of the suspension of his licence contains factual errors.

I find this bizarre as the letter basically accuses Captain James of being incompetent, yet the author has made mistakes in the letter suspending his licence. I would ask the committee, particularly from this point of view, to investigate if the ATSB have breached the Transport Safety Investigation Act in terms of omission or coercion. The content of this report—

No. The evidence that we had at the time was very thin compared to the evidence that we have now, including aspects like the CASA special audit, which was not provided to Captain James in the—

It would have been. I did not even know it existed, because this was in May 2010 and that report, I believe, was produced in January 2010. So there was plenty of knowledge of it about there, but for some reason it did not—

Senator XENOPHON: So how can such an important report, an audit, firstly, not factor in CASA's move to suspend Mr James's licence? How can it not be discovered as part of the process? Secondly, how did it not feature in the ATSB report?

Mr Quinn: That is a very good question, and I think it is a question that maybe I cannot answer. That is critical information that, in terms of the accident sequence, certainly is relevant. So therefore that information should have been available.

My bold and spacing.

This all has a very familiar ring to it. If the willing accomplice was honest and honourable, then the message would be sent back, unopened. But alas, this shameful episode and others just like it have been driven home, no matter what the cost by a ruthless determination to obey the 'masters' wishes.

Sunny's The rule of the corporate psychopath texts are on the money, and Robin Speed has shown how it is all made to work. Sad, shameful, disgraceful – yes to all.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Being criticised in senate committee report is like being whipped with a piece wet lettuce. Do you think the minister will be inclined to do anything in response?

Sadly I don't, but they should. Which is why I said

The senators made very clear they are responsible and will be held accountable. If the senators do nothing now they will be no better than the casa and Atsb.

[Sarcs]

Steve Creedy Oz article!

Steve Creedy from the Oz newspaper has actually gone beyond the obligatory 2 paragraphs for matters such as this and Steve has actually ended up with a reasonably well balanced article.

Here's the link although you'll have to sign up to get the full article:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

I guess the flying rat isn't implicated which makes it easier for Steve as there is no risk of losing his annual complimentary iPAD.

[Kharon]

Airtex had the wrong defence lawyer.

Hansard p 48. Should have got this one:-

The gaffs.

Mr Anastasi: They were. They were in the sense that the operations manual required those persons be approved by the company. Yes, the CASA audit report made the comment that they were not approved by CASA, but those persons who were conducting that in-command under supervision flight were not required to be approved by CASA as chief pilots. The civil aviation orders—

Mr Anastasi: It is not cowboy stuff because what was being done was in accordance with the legislation.

Mr Anastasi: They were qualified. The view expressed in the audit report is not accurate in the sense that the officers who prepared the report assumed that those Pel-Air pilots had to have CASA approval to fly with Mr James when he was in-command under supervision when in fact that is only required where CASA under the orders requires that those persons be approved by CASA. In that case, that did not occur. The operations manual required that those pilots be approved—

The quick shut up motion, Mc Quote to the rescue.

Mr McCormick: We are talking about the chief pilot. In actual fact, Mr Dominic James's training—and this is reading from the submission which we would have made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if Mr James had not withdrawn his action—
The people who conducted that—and it is in the special audit report—were not at the time approved by CASA as supervisory pilots. That is in our audit report.

More Mc Quotes, or Mc Nuggets over the weekend. Could we have Mc Nuggatories?.

[Sarcs]

Mr Anastasi: They were qualified. The view expressed in the audit report is not accurate in the sense that the officers who prepared the report assumed that those Pel-Air pilots had to have CASA approval to fly with Mr James when he was in-command under supervision when in fact that is only required where CASA under the orders requires that those persons be approved by CASA. In that case, that did not occur. The operations manual required that those pilots be approved—

So AA has it covered legally speaking but it is interesting that the head legal schmuck has a different take to the experienced FOIs carrying out the audit. Those FOIs even provided the reference:

p18 Special audit report:Had this position been approved by CASA, he would not have been qualified to conduct asymmetric training. CAO 82.1 Para 3.3 states ‘Persons must not be nominated to supervisory positions within the training and checking organization without the approval of CASA’.

What you say! Not a difference of opinion/interpretation of the regs?? Don't worry always back Big Macks McLegal McNugget AA to pull us out of that pile of pony pooh....hmm also found this interesting in the McSpecial McAudit report:

During the ICUS period, training including ‘V1 cuts’ was also conducted by Mr Ian Maitland who is not a CASA approved Training or Checking Captain. Mr Maitland had been internally approved as a Supervisory Captain by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Limited.

Last time I looked 'V1 cuts' up in my aeronautical database it was defined as assymetric training or checking...hmm interesting a Supervisory pilot conducting V1 cuts without being approved to do so by CASA...sorry that doesn't compute???

[thorn bird]

"During the ICUS period, training including ‘V1 cuts’

Uh?
ICUS "In command Under supervision"

Always thought ICUS was conducted on normal line operations.

Wonder what the Pax thought when the noise diminished and the gap between the rocks and the aircraft stopped expanding?

Good grief, the Airtex naughtiness pales into insignificance compared to Pelair's sins, or could the BK baggage handler's personal animosity towards Airtex have led him one way, and given the Skull had already p..sed off the family owned Singapore Inc. by costing them a lot of money, maybe he pulled the puppet masters strings to keep his attack dog going the other to save embarrassment?

[Sunfish]

CAO 82.1 Para 3.3 states ‘Persons must not be nominated to supervisory positions within the training and checking organization without the approval of CASA’.


This type of legal weasel wording makes me want to throw up and my limited understanding suggests the regulations are full of it and it is the proximate cause of our distress.

For a start it is the good old double negative instead of a positive affirmation:

" must not.......without". This should be simply " must".


But then there is the deadly word " nominated" what does that mean? It means simply " named". It is meaningless. Anyone can name themselves or others anything they like.

What is really required is the word "appointed" which implies the conferral of some power or duty.

The wording should be: " prior CASA approval is required for all supervisory appointments within the training and checking organization." however that doesn't leave any legal wiggle room for lawyers to make money does it?

[blackhand]

Sunfish, this is not inconsistent with your usual diatribe against the regulations.

[SIUYA]

Sunfish...

Anyone can name themselves or others anything they like.

Like Director of Aviation Safety perhaps?

Recent events seem to indicate that title is totally meaningless and perhaps misleading.

You provided a good example of the convoluted regulatory nonsense that presently exists.

Persons must not be nominated to supervisory positions within the training and checking organization without the approval of CASA. (19 words)

And you suggested:

Prior CASA approval is required for all supervisory appointments within the training and checking organization. (15 words = 79% of the original CAO version)

It could be shortened even further Sunfish:

Supervisory appointments in training and checking organizations require prior CASA approval. (11 words = 58% of the original CAO version)

If that sort of approach had been taken by CASA when it embarked on the regulatory rewrite process what seems like about a million ago, then we would have had a readily-understandable system a whole lot quicker than what we have (or don't have) today.

[Creampuff]

Yes, it is so easy to draft clear and concise rules.

Prior CASA approval is required for all supervisory appointments within the training and checking organization.

So, who breaches that rule if someone is appointed without CASA approval?

Supervisory appointments in training and checking organizations require prior CASA approval.

Really? Why? An appointment is an inanimate concept that doesn’t ‘require’ anything.

But don’t let me slow you down: Lawyers love it when amateurs draft contracts, wills and laws.

[blackhand]

Lawyers love it when amateurs draft contracts, wills and laws

Does this mean lawyers don't love it when amateurs don't draft contracts etc?

[Kharon]

Yeah But.

The wriggle room and the ability to utilise the 'extreme' limits of part of a convoluted regulation or order is what feeds the beasts at the bottom of the pond.

Whilst the spirit and intent of a law can be manipulated to suit whatever is required, as needed, tailor made to order; there is no chance of meaningful regulatory reform, no matter who writes it.

I am not sure we even need the reform, just honest people who can 'translate' the gobbledygook into operational compliance. As it stands the system has been perverted and manipulated to be simply a useful tool for satisfying the pre judged guilt and ensuring it sticks.

CP, give us a clue, please. How should that 'rule' be phrased. I can hear what you say, but it would be nice to have an example for comparison.

Steam off: I know back to my knitting,

[Greedy]

Am I following this discussion correctly? To be made a Training Captain in a 217 organisation (Line Training only-no abnormals. Emergency and Abnormals done by others in a simulator) requires the approval of that person by CASA under CAO 82?
I was under the impression that Training Captains could be appointed by the company without reference to CASA.

Greedy

[Creampuff]

CP, give us a clue, please. How should that 'rule' be phrased. I can hear what you say, but it would be nice to have an example for comparison.

It depends on what the rule is intended to achieve. I have NFI about that and, based on the evidence given to the committee, it appears that CASA is not united on the issue either.

[Sunfish]

If what you say is true Creampuff, then how can CASA regulate anything at all?

The essence of Weberian bureaucracy in its finest sense is precision, transparency and the total impossibility of public servants using their discretion outside of very narrow and prescribed limits.

To put that another way, it should not matter where you go in the country or who you ask, CASA staff should give identical answers to identical questions and respond identically to identical situations. It would appear this is not the case, and it should be.

Blackhand of course makes money out of "interpreting" the current regulations for the rest of us, as is his right, so it is natural that he champions the current incomprehensible rules. This is perfectly legal.

[Sarcs]

Here's a thought why not do away with the requirement of CAO 82.3 Para 3.3 then it would no longer be an issue, other ICAO signatory states don't seem to have any issues with that concept.

Here's the FAA definition/version of a "Supervisory Pilot", although the yanks call it.."AIR TRANSPORTATION FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR—AIRCRAFT":

3-1399 AIR TRANSPORTATION FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR—AIRCRAFT. An air transportation flight instructor in an aircraft may be a pilot instructor, a FE instructor, or both, and may also conduct flight training in a SIM, FTD, or ground training.

A. Eligibility. An instructor candidate airman must meet the following eligibility requirements:

·Hold the certificate and ratings required to serve in revenue service in the specified crewmember duty position on the specific aircraft except that the certificates and ratings are not required for training programs approved under § 121.409(b) (simulators).

·Hold a valid third‑class medical certificate (FAA Form 8500-9) for operations conducted under part 91 such as aircraft training and aircraft ferry operations.

·Meet currency requirements to serve as the PIC for the operator or as FE for the operator, including ground and flight training, proficiency or competency checks, and (for pilots) 90-day landing currency.

·For pilots, must complete an annual line check or line observation module of a recurrent qualification curriculum segment.

·Have received flight instructor qualification training under the operator’s approved training program, including the training required by §§ 121.411, 121.413, and appendix H, or §§ 135.337 and 135.339, as applicable.

·Maintain line currency as a flight deck crewmember with the operator, or be line familiar with the operator’s procedures and line operation by participating in a line observation program that the operator’s POI has approved. (Refer to the current edition of AC 120-35 for a discussion of terms.) For those instructors and check airmen who maintain line currency, holding a medical certificate appropriate to the crew position occupied on the line is a requirement.

B. Authorized Activities. An air transportation flight instructor in an aircraft, when authorized by the employer, may conduct the following flight instruction activities:

·Flight instruction for airmen in an aircraft in flight, including instruction in giving appropriate preflight and postflight briefings.

·Certification of the satisfactory performance of an airman after completion of a flight training curriculum segment or flight training module.

·When authorized by the operator, ground instruction and certification of the satisfactory completion by an airman of a ground training curriculum segment.

Ahh but that would be too logical wouldn't it and how could we trust the Operator to administer such a hair-brain scheme!

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and fuel use

I browsed the documents and hidden in the data is the following fuel use data for a range of flights in the Pacific;



I have run through this [a PPL who has flown some of these routes in the past] and list off the times ex-Norfolk that aircraft have arrived and the amount of fuel left:




Well Mr. casa, a surveillance of the operator should have elicited this information should it not??

[Kharon]

BOLLOCKS.

UIA -

The great majority of the examples used in the data presented to the Senate (Table 1) to describe the fuel burn rates are nearly all West going East. Everyone knows the prevailing winds are West away NW, tail wind nearly every time.

The Data we want to see is the 'tough' stuff' East to West, all of it, not just some 'cherry picked' good examples. I notice the numbers are AEO, how do the OEI and DeP ones shake out. Scary stuff.

The real story is not about the route reports foisted on the Senate to convince or mislead it that there really is no systematic fuel policy problems with PA. Problem officer? Nope, none at all.

To reiterate BOLLOCKS.