Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Its fascinating to learn that the AIP has no force whatsoever.
You don’t need to dig too far into the rules to find many links to the AIP, backed up by criminal offences. For example:
239 Planning of flight by pilot in command
(1) Before beginning a flight, the pilot in command shall study all available information appropriate to the intended operation, and, in the cases of flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome and all I.F.R. flights, shall make a careful study of:
(a) current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be followed and at aerodromes to be used;
(b) the airways facilities available on the route to be followed and the condition of those facilities;
(c) the condition of aerodromes to be used and their suitability for the aircraft to be used; and
(d) the air traffic control rules and procedure appertaining to the particular flight;
and the pilot shall plan the flight in relation to the information obtained.
(2) When meteorological conditions at the aerodromes of intended landing are forecast to be less than the minima specified by CASA, the pilot in command shall make provision for an alternative course of action and shall arrange for the aircraft to carry the necessary additional fuel.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(3) An offence against subregulation (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
240 Authority may issue instructions in relation to flight planning
(1) CASA may, in relation to the planning of flights referred to in subregulation 239 (1), issue instructions about:
(a) the weather reports or forecasts to which a pilot in command must have regard in planning a flight; and
(b) the circumstances in which a pilot in command must plan for an alternative course of action (including the use of alternate aerodromes); and
(c) the information that the pilot in command must take into account in planning an alternative course of action including:
(i) the range and timeliness of the available meteorological information about the aircraft’s destination; and
(ii) the type and number of radio navigation aids that must be available at the aircraft’s destination; and
(d) the conditions that an alternate aerodrome must meet before it can be used as an alternate aerodrome.
(2) If an instruction under subregulation (1) is not issued in the form of a Civil Aviation Order, the instruction does not bind a person until it has been:
(a) served on the person; or
(b) published in NOTAMS or AIP.
(3) CASA may give permission, subject to the conditions specified in the permission, for a pilot in command to plan a flight without having regard to an instruction under subregulation (1).
Last edited by Creampuff; 4th Nov 2012 at 03:37.
Kharon said: The Senate is probably now much more interested in who orchestrated this embarrassing, 'unfortunate' episode and why?
But the bigger breaks in the communication chain were further down the ranks and in the conflicting information displayed in the Special Audit vs the Investigation report (referred to by the Senators as the 'Hidden report').
The following letter to the ATSB from the head honcho of the investigation team is an example of where there appears to be a disconnect or cross purpose between the investigation vs the Special Audit vs the ATSB:
The revealing line there is the.."CASA is not aware of any changes from Charter to Airwork in respect of Air Ambulance functions".
This suggests that even at the early stages of the investigation that the investigators already had the blinkers on and did not consider that flight classification of an operation was worthy of their consideration i.e. we've already got our man. Which would also appear to be totally contradictory to the Special Audit findings.
So I can count about three interested party loops going on here and each has been tasked/motivated in a different way, which is why it all ended up such a cluster fcku!
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
Slowly slowly catch the monkey
Ok, so now might be the time to further apply the blowtorch:
Pel Air aren't the only 'outfit' to undergo a 'special audit', or as the good Senators would say, 'hidden report'. There was also one of these reports done 'post Lockhart River/Aerotropics', yes Australia's worst accident, and the 'hidden report' is critical of CASA and it's role in the accident. It would also be alleged that the same person(s) that authored the Pel Air 'special audit' commissioned the Lockhart River/Aerotropics 'special audit'.
Question is this - Why is somebody at CASA apparently doing robust work and slicing through the pony pooh yet the rest of CASA and the ATSB couldn't investigate a bad case of herpes?
The time has well and truly passed to pull down this house of cards. It is a joke. People have died, asses get covered and the families of innocent dead people get to live out their days knowing that circumstances pertaining to their loved ones deaths aren't as things seem.
A royal commission is now warranted, the whole dirty story needs to be laid out for all to see. One can only hope that those who are championing this cause, average joe's who actually care about lives, plus a handful of smart Senators, a pissed off industry and some top notch Journalists can push hard enough to get it over the line.
Perhaps the Senators would like to 'request' a copy of that report to peruse?
Pel Air aren't the only 'outfit' to undergo a 'special audit', or as the good Senators would say, 'hidden report'. There was also one of these reports done 'post Lockhart River/Aerotropics', yes Australia's worst accident, and the 'hidden report' is critical of CASA and it's role in the accident. It would also be alleged that the same person(s) that authored the Pel Air 'special audit' commissioned the Lockhart River/Aerotropics 'special audit'.
Question is this - Why is somebody at CASA apparently doing robust work and slicing through the pony pooh yet the rest of CASA and the ATSB couldn't investigate a bad case of herpes?
The time has well and truly passed to pull down this house of cards. It is a joke. People have died, asses get covered and the families of innocent dead people get to live out their days knowing that circumstances pertaining to their loved ones deaths aren't as things seem.
A royal commission is now warranted, the whole dirty story needs to be laid out for all to see. One can only hope that those who are championing this cause, average joe's who actually care about lives, plus a handful of smart Senators, a pissed off industry and some top notch Journalists can push hard enough to get it over the line.
Perhaps the Senators would like to 'request' a copy of that report to peruse?
Oh, and let’s not forget the outcome of Lockhart River either:
That the Australian Government strengthens CASA's governance
framework and administrative capability by:
a) Introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA (FAIL)
b) Undertaking a review of CASA's funding arrangements to ensure CASA is equipped to deal with new regulatory challenges (FAIL)
2. In accordance with the findings of the Hawke Taskforce, that CASA's Regulatory Reform Program be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible to provide certainty to industry and to ensure CASA and industry are ready to address future safety challenges (FAIL)
3. That the Australian National Audit Office audit CASA's implementation and administration of its Safety Management Systems approach (debatable)
That the Australian Government strengthens CASA's governance
framework and administrative capability by:
a) Introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA (FAIL)
b) Undertaking a review of CASA's funding arrangements to ensure CASA is equipped to deal with new regulatory challenges (FAIL)
2. In accordance with the findings of the Hawke Taskforce, that CASA's Regulatory Reform Program be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible to provide certainty to industry and to ensure CASA and industry are ready to address future safety challenges (FAIL)
3. That the Australian National Audit Office audit CASA's implementation and administration of its Safety Management Systems approach (debatable)
Last edited by gobbledock; 4th Nov 2012 at 09:05.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
601 # 660 "worst accident", in what way?
The whole problem here is that the decision-makers at the ATSB and CASA failed to take into account the "Sunlight Test", because through their total arrogance and in their wildest dreams they never imagined that their decisions about the investigation report would be examined, or would come under such intense pubic scrutiny and discussion as subsequently happened.
And that raises serious questions about the ethical conduct of management personnel at both the ATSB and CASA.
Or why the Minister hasn't taken decisive action to remedy the situation, and to give all the ATSB & CASA players involved a DCM.
A decision that passes the "Sunlight test” is one that is logical, rational, and fair, and asks a person to imagine that if their actions and decison-making processes became known to family or friends, or if they were widely published, could that person justify the decisions, and would that person be proud of him/herself.
And that raises serious questions about the ethical conduct of management personnel at both the ATSB and CASA.
Or why the Minister hasn't taken decisive action to remedy the situation, and to give all the ATSB & CASA players involved a DCM.
A decision that passes the "Sunlight test” is one that is logical, rational, and fair, and asks a person to imagine that if their actions and decison-making processes became known to family or friends, or if they were widely published, could that person justify the decisions, and would that person be proud of him/herself.
Last edited by SIUYA; 4th Nov 2012 at 21:01. Reason: Typos
My guess is that CASA will be "enhanced" - that is to say broken up into a regulator and an enforcer, and the New Zealand/FAA regulations will be adopted. That would be the fastest and cheapest solution in my opinion.
You haven't had what are supposed to be a set of confidential documents to that effect leaked to you, by any chance??
Tootle pip!!
PS: Regardless of the "regulations", an incredibly hard thing to shift is an entrenched "culture".
Nothing leaked, but I am aware that there exists a class of very bright, hard working and thoroughly decent public servants who have the interests of Australia at heart.
Those folk work for The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
They are quite capable of dismembering CASA on a Sunday morning and reconstituting something better By Monday afternoon. They are very very bright people, they will see right through CASA and brook no excuses......and they do work Sunday mornings when it's needed.
I watched one of them utterly destroy part of a Department that had Developed some, shall we say, "undesirable tendencies". It was gone in less than a week after the brief got Cabinet approval. The execution was done with a stilleto and there was no collateral damage to it's staff who were simply reassigned and transferred.
The guilty, on the other hand, suddenly found that their little gravy train had run out of steam, and that there were no alternative senior positions available...ever.
To put it another way, if CASA becomes enough of an embarrassment to the government, it will be PM & C that acts, and they are smart.
Those folk work for The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
They are quite capable of dismembering CASA on a Sunday morning and reconstituting something better By Monday afternoon. They are very very bright people, they will see right through CASA and brook no excuses......and they do work Sunday mornings when it's needed.
I watched one of them utterly destroy part of a Department that had Developed some, shall we say, "undesirable tendencies". It was gone in less than a week after the brief got Cabinet approval. The execution was done with a stilleto and there was no collateral damage to it's staff who were simply reassigned and transferred.
The guilty, on the other hand, suddenly found that their little gravy train had run out of steam, and that there were no alternative senior positions available...ever.
To put it another way, if CASA becomes enough of an embarrassment to the government, it will be PM & C that acts, and they are smart.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Nov 2012 at 00:58.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are speaking of our incumbants advisory bureaucrats, you are opening yourself up to something you probably don't deserve. The same mob who fund Flannery's junket wouldn't have a clue. How could anybody trust them to dissolve this lot at CAA?
Now I know you’re off with the fairies, Sunfish.
There are no public servants with that power.
The people with that power are the PM’s personal advisers. The personal advisers are neither public servants nor elected representatives; they are accountable to no one (but run the country).
If you think there’s any prospect of CASA being dismantled over any weekend, or at all, in the near future, I’ve got shares in a (slightly soggy) Brooklyn Bridge for sale.
When CASA’s and the ATSB’s activities are a hot topic among the focus groups and affect the opinion polls, things might change.
There are no public servants with that power.
The people with that power are the PM’s personal advisers. The personal advisers are neither public servants nor elected representatives; they are accountable to no one (but run the country).
If you think there’s any prospect of CASA being dismantled over any weekend, or at all, in the near future, I’ve got shares in a (slightly soggy) Brooklyn Bridge for sale.
When CASA’s and the ATSB’s activities are a hot topic among the focus groups and affect the opinion polls, things might change.
Sorry creamy, but you are wrong. The secretary, deputy secretaries and the younger "clerks" at PM&C are about the brightest this country produces and it would be a very courageous politician who ignored their advice. Ministers are well aware of the powers of PM&C and tread carefully because they have the ear of the Ministers boss.
Of course gillards advisors carry a lot of weight, but when it comes to "managing" other public servants and dealing with administrative matters, the PM&C public servants are the masters. The advisers have a say in policy but the public servants make it happen.
If Gillard believed there was a need for action, PM&C would tell DOT what was going to be done.
Having said all that, the CASA report appears factual, at least to an uneducated PPL like me.
Of course gillards advisors carry a lot of weight, but when it comes to "managing" other public servants and dealing with administrative matters, the PM&C public servants are the masters. The advisers have a say in policy but the public servants make it happen.
If Gillard believed there was a need for action, PM&C would tell DOT what was going to be done.
Having said all that, the CASA report appears factual, at least to an uneducated PPL like me.
OK, I’ll bite.
Given that:
(1) CASA is an independent statutory authority
(2) CASA’s staff aren’t members of the Australian public service, and
(3) legislation would be required to change 1 and 2,
precisely how would these whizkid public servants in PM&C dismantle CASA over a weekend, Sunfish?
Given that:
(1) CASA is an independent statutory authority
(2) CASA’s staff aren’t members of the Australian public service, and
(3) legislation would be required to change 1 and 2,
precisely how would these whizkid public servants in PM&C dismantle CASA over a weekend, Sunfish?
How would they do it?
Not sure, I assume the Minister has some discretion regarding appointments , then of course there is the funding lever, then of course there is the royal commission lever.
Then there is the promotions lever....... ..and the creation of another organization lever, and the swap in ministerial responsibilities lever (like creating another Ministry)
There are a multitude of ways to do it, the artistry lies in selecting the appropriate weapon, scalpel, stiletto, axe, whatever. The plots are the stuff of Canberra table talk at the senior level.
Some of you would be amazed at what goes on in Canberra. The first rule is not to use a commonwealth car and driver to visit your mistress.That has brought down more than one senior public servant.
As for being best and brightest, at even the junior level in the SES they would all have at least honors degrees from good universities, be bright intelligent and very hard working- at least the ones I have met are. A cabinet brief to cut up CASA into regulator plus an enforcer and revamp the ATSB would take about one A4 page.....and at or above a certain level, they do put in the odd hour on a Sunday.
Not sure, I assume the Minister has some discretion regarding appointments , then of course there is the funding lever, then of course there is the royal commission lever.
Then there is the promotions lever....... ..and the creation of another organization lever, and the swap in ministerial responsibilities lever (like creating another Ministry)
There are a multitude of ways to do it, the artistry lies in selecting the appropriate weapon, scalpel, stiletto, axe, whatever. The plots are the stuff of Canberra table talk at the senior level.
Some of you would be amazed at what goes on in Canberra. The first rule is not to use a commonwealth car and driver to visit your mistress.That has brought down more than one senior public servant.
As for being best and brightest, at even the junior level in the SES they would all have at least honors degrees from good universities, be bright intelligent and very hard working- at least the ones I have met are. A cabinet brief to cut up CASA into regulator plus an enforcer and revamp the ATSB would take about one A4 page.....and at or above a certain level, they do put in the odd hour on a Sunday.
Having said all that, the CASA report appears factual, at least to an uneducated PPL like me.
If we take a look at 1.1 'History of the flight' (history constructed from the transcript of taped communications between ATC and the aircraft), we find the following:
0801 UTC NADI ATC provides the aircraft with the METAR for YSNF issued at 0630 ZULU. This was then updated with an Auto SPECI for Norfolk issued at 0800 ZULU. Wind 290 at 08 knots cloud overcast (OVC) at one thousand one hundred ft AGL, 21°c and the dew point was 19°c QNH Norfolk 1012.
MICK QUINN: In review when you look at the actual weather report that was issued, the actual cloud base was not at 6,000 feet. It was at 600 feet.
That indicates to Dominic, it reinforces his mental picture, that the forecast still is as it was, it's even better than what it was when he got the original forecast when he departed.
MARTIN DOLAN: That's not one that I am familiar with at the level of detail in the report so ...
GEOFF THOMPSON: So it might be a mistake.
MARTIN DOLAN: It, it may well be a mistake. I'll have to take a look at that.
GEOFF THOMSON: And he did.
Last Friday the ATSB acknowledged Dominic James received incorrect weather report from Fiji and changed its report.
DOMINIC JAMES: If I'd been told that there was cloud at 600 feet, even given the fact that I suspected the automatic system was overstating the weather at Norfolk, I would've gone to Fiji.
That indicates to Dominic, it reinforces his mental picture, that the forecast still is as it was, it's even better than what it was when he got the original forecast when he departed.
MARTIN DOLAN: That's not one that I am familiar with at the level of detail in the report so ...
GEOFF THOMPSON: So it might be a mistake.
MARTIN DOLAN: It, it may well be a mistake. I'll have to take a look at that.
GEOFF THOMSON: And he did.
Last Friday the ATSB acknowledged Dominic James received incorrect weather report from Fiji and changed its report.
DOMINIC JAMES: If I'd been told that there was cloud at 600 feet, even given the fact that I suspected the automatic system was overstating the weather at Norfolk, I would've gone to Fiji.
The investigators also never make it clear if the pilot had acknowledged receipt of either the 0803 UTC amended TAF or the 0800 UTC auto SPECI. What we really need is a copy of the original unaltered version of the transcript from the taped communications between ATC and the aircraft!!
What I also find quite remarkable is that except for the usual ATSB embellishments the ATSB Final Report almost exactly mirrors that put out by the CASA investigators!
No Sunny there is plenty more to unearth in the CASA (hidden) report!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cream Puff a question.
CP, no side on the ball or anything; I would very much appreciate your opinion on a question that's puzzling me; so if you could indulge me and oblige.
From about page 60 onwards in the CASA special audit there a many RCA/ Observations where the name typed (as requested) is not the signature of the issuing officer (as requested): i.e. RCA 123456 raised by Ms. Frump (typed) is signed off by Mr. A. Crock (written). The 'bulk' appear to have been raised by the 'typed name' and signed by the same name.
Can this be done?. Straight, honest question.
From about page 60 onwards in the CASA special audit there a many RCA/ Observations where the name typed (as requested) is not the signature of the issuing officer (as requested): i.e. RCA 123456 raised by Ms. Frump (typed) is signed off by Mr. A. Crock (written). The 'bulk' appear to have been raised by the 'typed name' and signed by the same name.
Can this be done?. Straight, honest question.
Last edited by Kharon; 5th Nov 2012 at 05:41. Reason: There are still two F's in Off. One day
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Worst in 40 years
In reply to Powderpuff and 601 - post 660
Coroner to hear evidence on air crash
by: Padraic Murphy
From: The Australian
June 04, 2007 12:00AM
QUEENSLAND state Coroner Michael Barnes arrived on Thursday Island yesterday to launch an investigation into Australia's worst airline disaster in 40 years.
The inquest, which involves four days of public hearings on Thursday Island from today, is expected to hear from three police and four safety investigators who will give evidence about the May 2005 crash near Lockhart River in north Queensland in which 15 people died.
Representatives from Transair, the plane's operators, are not expected to be questioned until the inquest resumes in Brisbane later in the year.
All 15 people aboard the Fairchild Metroliner were killed when the plane slammed into a hill.
The tragedy, which has already been blamed by air safety investigators on pilot error and poor safety standards of the airline's operators, Transair, is being investigated by Mr Barnes, who has the power to recommend criminal charges.
Family members of many of the dead from Bamaga near the tip of Cape York are expected to arrive on Thursday Island today to attend the public hearings.
The first witnesses are expected to be three police detectives who arrived at the crash site, followed by rescue workers.
The inquest is expected to further strain relations between the airline and the relatives of those who died.
Last month, family members from Bamaga lodged claims seeking up to $500,000 in damages under the Civil Aviation Act.
The claims were lodged -- on behalf of the families of victims Gordon Kris, 37, Helena Woosup, 25, Mardie Bowie, 30, Fred Bowie, 25, and Frank Billy, 21 -- in the Queensland Supreme Court against the insurer of Lessbrook Pty Ltd, trading asTransair, which is now in liquidation.
In April, an investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau blamed the tragedy on pilot error and a poor safety culture at the aircraft's operator, Transair.
The report found Transair pilots in Cairns effectively supervised themselves and that their operations manuals lacked key elements such as criteria for making a stabilised approach essential for safe landings.
"Transair's safety management and culture were poor," ATSB executive director Kym Bills told The Australian in April.
Mr Bills said the airline's chief pilot was over-committed with roles as managing director, chief executive, primary check and training pilot.
Coroner
Coroner to hear evidence on air crash
by: Padraic Murphy
From: The Australian
June 04, 2007 12:00AM
QUEENSLAND state Coroner Michael Barnes arrived on Thursday Island yesterday to launch an investigation into Australia's worst airline disaster in 40 years.
The inquest, which involves four days of public hearings on Thursday Island from today, is expected to hear from three police and four safety investigators who will give evidence about the May 2005 crash near Lockhart River in north Queensland in which 15 people died.
Representatives from Transair, the plane's operators, are not expected to be questioned until the inquest resumes in Brisbane later in the year.
All 15 people aboard the Fairchild Metroliner were killed when the plane slammed into a hill.
The tragedy, which has already been blamed by air safety investigators on pilot error and poor safety standards of the airline's operators, Transair, is being investigated by Mr Barnes, who has the power to recommend criminal charges.
Family members of many of the dead from Bamaga near the tip of Cape York are expected to arrive on Thursday Island today to attend the public hearings.
The first witnesses are expected to be three police detectives who arrived at the crash site, followed by rescue workers.
The inquest is expected to further strain relations between the airline and the relatives of those who died.
Last month, family members from Bamaga lodged claims seeking up to $500,000 in damages under the Civil Aviation Act.
The claims were lodged -- on behalf of the families of victims Gordon Kris, 37, Helena Woosup, 25, Mardie Bowie, 30, Fred Bowie, 25, and Frank Billy, 21 -- in the Queensland Supreme Court against the insurer of Lessbrook Pty Ltd, trading asTransair, which is now in liquidation.
In April, an investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau blamed the tragedy on pilot error and a poor safety culture at the aircraft's operator, Transair.
The report found Transair pilots in Cairns effectively supervised themselves and that their operations manuals lacked key elements such as criteria for making a stabilised approach essential for safe landings.
"Transair's safety management and culture were poor," ATSB executive director Kym Bills told The Australian in April.
Mr Bills said the airline's chief pilot was over-committed with roles as managing director, chief executive, primary check and training pilot.
Coroner