Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
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
Lookleft;
Most, thank you.
The Data recorders being left at the bottom of the water would have answered a lot more. What are the chances they are still intact?
o have your questions been answered?
The Data recorders being left at the bottom of the water would have answered a lot more. What are the chances they are still intact?
Blackhand
Please explain further. It seemed a fairly evenly worded submission to me.
No it's not. It's an emotive diatribe full of subjective and sometimes falacious information
I agree with 27/09. Other than some misunderstandings about some of the intricacies of the regulatory issues – not surprising, given that he is a layperson – I thought Mr Currall’s submission contained many valid and powerful points.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa reply to the Senate
I have read with interest and note that casa is still "playing the man", rather than dealing with the real issues at hand.
The following is an example of this in casa's submission in reply to the current Senate enquiry into PelAir and Norfolk Island.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
The interesting reference [when all else fails] to the new regs. has been trotted out again.
Come on Mr. casa
This time the Senate is really watching.
The following is an example of this in casa's submission in reply to the current Senate enquiry into PelAir and Norfolk Island.
[IMG]
[/IMG]The interesting reference [when all else fails] to the new regs. has been trotted out again.
Come on Mr. casa
This time the Senate is really watching.
But CASA, how can James be held to account for not following the instruction in the AIP, when you have admitted in an email elsewhere that the AIP has no head of power and is thus merely "advice"?
One wonders why CASA didn’t quote a perfectly serviceable and applicable regulation (224) rather than the AIP.
This stuff makes me sick to the stomach:
I don’t know which alternative I’d prefer: That CASA hopes nobody remembers the last dozen times those expectations were asserted and unfulfilled, or that CASA earnestly expects it.
This stuff makes me sick to the stomach:
CASA is finalising the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and expects these will be completed and made by the end of the first quarter 2013.
But even poor old Blind Freddy (P18) could see which way CASA would jump, straight into the deep dark hole. Mick Quinn, Brian Aherne and others did not start off by attacking the man, there's not a personal attack printed. The CASA reponse is a silly, desperate, arrogant move really, as 'he who must not be named' is well aware; there are skeletons in every human beings cupboard. In fact, the little attacks on Aherne and Quinn serve very well to illustrate the 'mind set' of a discredited, moribund authority furiously attempting a King Canute imitation. I note Messrs A and Q continue to play the ball, not the man with a couple of first class responses, Brava, well done.
It is also very hard to remotely fathom what these 'bully boy' tactics, subterfusion and legal rangling employed by the regulator has got to do with aviation safety and lessening the risk of a similar accident ever happening again, these numbnuts have totally lost the plot!
The pick of the two supp submissions is definitely Aherne's as the regulator went really hard at him.
To Aherne's credit he stands his ground at the crease and plays a straight bat. He picks those dipping regulator googlies and every second over he clips the ball off his pads over the square leg boundary for six.
But the best part is he totally ignores the sledging coming from the regulator's slips cordone and continues to concentrate and take each 'ball' on its merits..good job BA! (the cricket analogy maybe lost on some but go the Ozzies!)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we have this PA total clusterfcuk revealing more and more shennanigans, coverups, subplots etc within the very same system that the former DAS was fully endorsing (above), can we really be proud of such a system??
Many of us will recognize these attacks. BA's response shows how to deal with them!
Maybe flyingfiend will start posting again?!
UITA touches on paragraphs 5.10.10-5.10.13 of CASA's attempted smear of BA, see here... http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...oon-fax-4.html ...although you would need to be adept at yodelling to get from one side of the screen to the other or have a big screen
Aherne's rebuttal is particularly poignant and worth taking note of (reference paragraph 5.10.11-5.10.13):
Again good job BA and I think that JQ and his supporters would be loudly cheering from the Member's stand at the GABBA!
Aherne's rebuttal is particularly poignant and worth taking note of (reference paragraph 5.10.11-5.10.13):
5.10.11 CASA asserts my zeal to miss a significant point. Whichever way CASA may assert this, the fact is CASA has the ability to submit a brief of evidence for prosecution.
CASA in its zeal was quick to interview Mr James and not caution him that he was giving self incriminating evidence in an interview which CASA had no authority under law (quoted from their enforcement manual)
15.5 Power to Interview
Generally, a person cannot be compelled to talk to an Inspector or to answer any questions put to the person by an inspector. (There are some exceptions to this rule under section 32AJ of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, but such exceptions only apply in relation to investigators who are exercising powers under Part IIIA of the Act in accordance with a judicial warrant). Therefore, while every reasonable attempt should be made to conduct an interview in appropriate circumstances, inspectors should not press the matter if a person indicates that he or she does not want to be interviewed
5.10.12 CASA asserts I have made tendentious remarks. Ask Mr James how he feels about CASA’s safety related enforcement powers. He couldn’t work as a pilot, regardless of how CASA views the situation.
5.10.13 I think it is CASA that is confused. The CASA author should read their own Special Audit findings.
CASA in its zeal was quick to interview Mr James and not caution him that he was giving self incriminating evidence in an interview which CASA had no authority under law (quoted from their enforcement manual)
15.5 Power to Interview
Generally, a person cannot be compelled to talk to an Inspector or to answer any questions put to the person by an inspector. (There are some exceptions to this rule under section 32AJ of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, but such exceptions only apply in relation to investigators who are exercising powers under Part IIIA of the Act in accordance with a judicial warrant). Therefore, while every reasonable attempt should be made to conduct an interview in appropriate circumstances, inspectors should not press the matter if a person indicates that he or she does not want to be interviewed
5.10.12 CASA asserts I have made tendentious remarks. Ask Mr James how he feels about CASA’s safety related enforcement powers. He couldn’t work as a pilot, regardless of how CASA views the situation.
5.10.13 I think it is CASA that is confused. The CASA author should read their own Special Audit findings.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where to now - Senators
The just released Flight Safety "e-magazine" has an interesting article on cockpit safety management ??
CRM ??
One could be excused, and with the rest of the magazine, that we are already on the "FARS", with the current Flight Safety magazine content.
Senators, please, please, just finish them [casa] off for us and allow Australian Aviation to "get on with life" and move either to the FAA system or the CAA - NZ immediately
CRM ??
One could be excused, and with the rest of the magazine, that we are already on the "FARS", with the current Flight Safety magazine content.
Senators, please, please, just finish them [casa] off for us and allow Australian Aviation to "get on with life" and move either to the FAA system or the CAA - NZ immediately
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 9th Nov 2012 at 11:30. Reason: Addition to direction for future
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 65
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back from the abyss
Perhaps A.Anustasi will explain to the Senators why he is actually Flyingfiend on pprune who has posted publicly about sensitive CASA issues such as investigations into operatos, fed police investigations and so forth?
Perhaps Terry can explain how a 'mate' of his in SA got a contract to supply computer software to Fort Fumble?
Or maybe they can explain why bully boy and bald fool Gerrard has risen and risen to his current position even though he has hounded and abused industry?
And don't forget Boyd, hiding in Canberra. Another manipulator and serial pest his blew millions of taxpayer dollars on failed projects. Rember the projects Pete?
And why did Harbor get turfed finally? I mean we all know what was going on, but what excuse, if any, has been given for his getting the boot? Have we kept that quiet Mr Skull?
Oh, and Mr Skull, pleaaaaaaase. The Senators asked you if you had a 'bad temper' remember? And you said that you don't! Naughty boy, lying to the Senators. And why did you and Terry and Dr Voodoo send Hoody to Canberra, quickly bury him. Why was that?
Oh my goodness, so many stories and so little time for me to rcall the fun days. I really hope the Senatos have a huge shovel and do some decent digging hey?
And speaking of Dr Voodoo, how is his interpretation of FAA findings and ICAO findings going? Still massaging the turd, fudging the figures, ducking, weaving and spinning the truth from the Senators?
Well, CASA, ASA, ATSB, what a disgrace. I do hope that the FAA come back. Imagine a downgrade, all becasue of CASA and a pathetic QF! How ironic?
Perhaps Terry can explain how a 'mate' of his in SA got a contract to supply computer software to Fort Fumble?
Or maybe they can explain why bully boy and bald fool Gerrard has risen and risen to his current position even though he has hounded and abused industry?
And don't forget Boyd, hiding in Canberra. Another manipulator and serial pest his blew millions of taxpayer dollars on failed projects. Rember the projects Pete?
And why did Harbor get turfed finally? I mean we all know what was going on, but what excuse, if any, has been given for his getting the boot? Have we kept that quiet Mr Skull?
Oh, and Mr Skull, pleaaaaaaase. The Senators asked you if you had a 'bad temper' remember? And you said that you don't! Naughty boy, lying to the Senators. And why did you and Terry and Dr Voodoo send Hoody to Canberra, quickly bury him. Why was that?
Oh my goodness, so many stories and so little time for me to rcall the fun days. I really hope the Senatos have a huge shovel and do some decent digging hey?
And speaking of Dr Voodoo, how is his interpretation of FAA findings and ICAO findings going? Still massaging the turd, fudging the figures, ducking, weaving and spinning the truth from the Senators?
Well, CASA, ASA, ATSB, what a disgrace. I do hope that the FAA come back. Imagine a downgrade, all becasue of CASA and a pathetic QF! How ironic?
Last edited by CASAweary; 9th Nov 2012 at 08:14.
I find the “First Supplemental Submission” of CASA to be quite repugnant.
It’s not so much that the Submission attempts to trash the integrity of some of the witnesses to the inquiry: the witnesses are prone to have their motives and evidence challenged, just as the witnesses are entitled to challenge the motives and evidence of the witnesses from CASA and the ATSB.
It’s mostly that the CASA Submission does not identify who is making, and takes responsibility for making, the allegations about the integrity of the witnesses.
Apparently, a group of people called “we” in CASA say that some evidence from a witness to the inquiry is, for example, “false and misleading”.
An allegation that evidence is “false” is a very, very serious one.
Who, precisely, comprises the group of people in CASA that are the “we” making and taking responsibility for the allegations?
I’m pretty sure that not everyone in CASA supports the content of the submission. So “we” can’t mean everyone in CASA.
Mr McCormick must be one of the “we” and, if all of the submissions so far are taken at face value, Mr McCormick is at risk of dining on sh*t sandwiches for some time. He has little choice but to take responsibility of submissions from “we in CASA”.
But who else in CASA takes responsibility for the content of the First Supplemental Submission? Who is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Mr McCormick, saying “we are among the ‘we’ who made, and take responsibility for having made, the allegations about the integrity of some of the witnesses”?
Perhaps “we” is the ‘royal we’, and Mr McCormick takes sole responsibility for the lot. If that’s the case, it’s no wonder CASA CEOs/DASRs etc are so easily set up and disposed of.
It’s not so much that the Submission attempts to trash the integrity of some of the witnesses to the inquiry: the witnesses are prone to have their motives and evidence challenged, just as the witnesses are entitled to challenge the motives and evidence of the witnesses from CASA and the ATSB.
It’s mostly that the CASA Submission does not identify who is making, and takes responsibility for making, the allegations about the integrity of the witnesses.
Apparently, a group of people called “we” in CASA say that some evidence from a witness to the inquiry is, for example, “false and misleading”.
An allegation that evidence is “false” is a very, very serious one.
Who, precisely, comprises the group of people in CASA that are the “we” making and taking responsibility for the allegations?
I’m pretty sure that not everyone in CASA supports the content of the submission. So “we” can’t mean everyone in CASA.
Mr McCormick must be one of the “we” and, if all of the submissions so far are taken at face value, Mr McCormick is at risk of dining on sh*t sandwiches for some time. He has little choice but to take responsibility of submissions from “we in CASA”.
But who else in CASA takes responsibility for the content of the First Supplemental Submission? Who is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Mr McCormick, saying “we are among the ‘we’ who made, and take responsibility for having made, the allegations about the integrity of some of the witnesses”?
Perhaps “we” is the ‘royal we’, and Mr McCormick takes sole responsibility for the lot. If that’s the case, it’s no wonder CASA CEOs/DASRs etc are so easily set up and disposed of.
Last edited by Creampuff; 9th Nov 2012 at 09:25.
Creamy good point, do you think that this FSS submission was written by CASA Legal Services i.e. AA and cronies? Or has the DAS got his EA to draft up this FSS with the ‘royal we’ and then got AA to run his eye over it? Either way it is quite a bizarre submission!
UITA you did it again mate although you are getting better and I won't have to yodel quite so far this time! Although I fail to see the relevance (at this stage) of your post, there are far too many juicy bits in the latest presented facts and figures in this sordid tale!
CASAweary good to see you back and as usual spot on with the appraisal of the regulators senior management.
I also agree with what these numbnuts are apparently prepared to risk (i.e. down to level 2), apparently after dodging the last ICAO bullet, through more spin and obfuscation, these numptys decided to have a sacrificial bonfire with a one finger salute to the FAA...god help us!
Anyway there's still more mileage and plenty more logs on the regulator bonfire before many past, present and 50:50 aviation stakeholders will be happy that the current dysfunctional regime is well and truly under seige, under fire and totally decimated....so let's get back to the story and not let these buggers turn this all into a puerile slugfest where nothing is achieved and nothing is changed.
As Kharon alluded to here:
The Davies submission is absolutely spot on and definitely worth the read.
It is extremely factual totally clinical and puts further pooh on the steadily mounting pile that goes to the extremely dubious credibility of our esteemed regulator and bureau.
Here's a section of interest that cuts through all the ****e that we've heard up till now (reference page 9-10 Davies submission):
What the Davies submission proves (beyond reasonable doubt) is that even when the ATSB were coerced into accepting the CASA line of… “Oh let’s just blame it on the pilot”…even then the ATSB couldn’t find it within themselves (within their budget) to perpetuate the lie with credible forensic evidence i.e. they fudged the figures. God we must be a laughing stock to EASA, the FAA and ICAO right about now!
UITA you did it again mate although you are getting better and I won't have to yodel quite so far this time! Although I fail to see the relevance (at this stage) of your post, there are far too many juicy bits in the latest presented facts and figures in this sordid tale!
CASAweary good to see you back and as usual spot on with the appraisal of the regulators senior management.
I also agree with what these numbnuts are apparently prepared to risk (i.e. down to level 2), apparently after dodging the last ICAO bullet, through more spin and obfuscation, these numptys decided to have a sacrificial bonfire with a one finger salute to the FAA...god help us!
Anyway there's still more mileage and plenty more logs on the regulator bonfire before many past, present and 50:50 aviation stakeholders will be happy that the current dysfunctional regime is well and truly under seige, under fire and totally decimated....so let's get back to the story and not let these buggers turn this all into a puerile slugfest where nothing is achieved and nothing is changed.
As Kharon alluded to here:
The Davies submission is first rate and well worth the read, sane rational and absolutely no Pony Pooh.
The Davies submission is absolutely spot on and definitely worth the read.
It is extremely factual totally clinical and puts further pooh on the steadily mounting pile that goes to the extremely dubious credibility of our esteemed regulator and bureau.
Here's a section of interest that cuts through all the ****e that we've heard up till now (reference page 9-10 Davies submission):
49. The TAF AMD 0803 UTC forecast cloud BKN010 (broken at 1000 ft above ARP), not 1100 ft as reported in the ATSB report (page 7).
50. The first time the crew became cognizant of a need to consider the option of an alternate aerodrome due to deteriorating weather at YSNF was 0904 UTC; by which time they had passed LPSD for NFFN (time 0845 UTC) (see para 54 and Annex G), and (based on the calculations above) the airport that would result in the greatest amount of fuel being available on arrival was YSNF. (See paras 35 and 36).
269 lb remaining at NWWW (less than FFR),
709 lb remaining at YSNF
51. The ATSB report (page 30) states: “…once an aircraft has passed its PNR, the flight crew is unable to divert to an alternate aerodrome with fuel reserves intact. In such cases, if there was a subsequent deterioration in the weather conditions, a crew would be compelled to either continue to its destination in the hope of becoming visual and being able to land, or to divert and arrive at an alternate aerodrome with less than the stipulated fuel reserves.”
52. The Pel-Air Ops manual states “8.5.2.2 If, as a result of an in-flight fuel check on a flight to a destination aerodrome, the expected fuel remaining at the point of last possible diversion is less than the sum of:
a) Fuel to divert to an enroute alternate aerodrome; and
b) Variable reserve fuel; and
c) Fixed reserve fuel.
The PIC shall either:
a) Divert; or
b) Proceed to the destination, provided that two separate runways are available and the expected weather conditions at the destination enable a successful approach and landing.”
53. At 0904 UTC the latest TAF for YSNF was for conditions below alternate minima, but above landing minima. The latest observation (SPECI 0902 UTC) also identified weather conditions below alternate minima, but above landing minima. As such the crew could have a reasonable expectation of becoming ‘visual’ prior to the completion of an instrument approach and landed.
54. Given that the aircraft was past its ‘last possible diversion’ to arrive with FFR remaining, and at YSNF there were two separate runways, and the expected weather conditions were above landing minima, the crew complied with the Pel-Air procedure (as accepted by CASA).
55. By the time the crew obtained the 0930 SPECI at time 0932 their options were:
Proceed to YSNF to attempt a landing, irrespective of the conditions, or Ditch in open water enroute to NWWW.
50. The first time the crew became cognizant of a need to consider the option of an alternate aerodrome due to deteriorating weather at YSNF was 0904 UTC; by which time they had passed LPSD for NFFN (time 0845 UTC) (see para 54 and Annex G), and (based on the calculations above) the airport that would result in the greatest amount of fuel being available on arrival was YSNF. (See paras 35 and 36).
269 lb remaining at NWWW (less than FFR),
709 lb remaining at YSNF
51. The ATSB report (page 30) states: “…once an aircraft has passed its PNR, the flight crew is unable to divert to an alternate aerodrome with fuel reserves intact. In such cases, if there was a subsequent deterioration in the weather conditions, a crew would be compelled to either continue to its destination in the hope of becoming visual and being able to land, or to divert and arrive at an alternate aerodrome with less than the stipulated fuel reserves.”
52. The Pel-Air Ops manual states “8.5.2.2 If, as a result of an in-flight fuel check on a flight to a destination aerodrome, the expected fuel remaining at the point of last possible diversion is less than the sum of:
a) Fuel to divert to an enroute alternate aerodrome; and
b) Variable reserve fuel; and
c) Fixed reserve fuel.
The PIC shall either:
a) Divert; or
b) Proceed to the destination, provided that two separate runways are available and the expected weather conditions at the destination enable a successful approach and landing.”
53. At 0904 UTC the latest TAF for YSNF was for conditions below alternate minima, but above landing minima. The latest observation (SPECI 0902 UTC) also identified weather conditions below alternate minima, but above landing minima. As such the crew could have a reasonable expectation of becoming ‘visual’ prior to the completion of an instrument approach and landed.
54. Given that the aircraft was past its ‘last possible diversion’ to arrive with FFR remaining, and at YSNF there were two separate runways, and the expected weather conditions were above landing minima, the crew complied with the Pel-Air procedure (as accepted by CASA).
55. By the time the crew obtained the 0930 SPECI at time 0932 their options were:
Proceed to YSNF to attempt a landing, irrespective of the conditions, or Ditch in open water enroute to NWWW.
What the Davies submission proves (beyond reasonable doubt) is that even when the ATSB were coerced into accepting the CASA line of… “Oh let’s just blame it on the pilot”…even then the ATSB couldn’t find it within themselves (within their budget) to perpetuate the lie with credible forensic evidence i.e. they fudged the figures. God we must be a laughing stock to EASA, the FAA and ICAO right about now!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sarcs - Creamy good point, do you think that this FSS submission was written by CASA Legal Services i.e. AA and cronies? Or has the DAS got his EA to draft up this FSS with the ‘royal we’ and then got AA to run his eye over it? Either way it is quite a bizarre submission!
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 9th Nov 2012 at 11:36. Reason: Gahdifjd
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chambers of Secrets.
CW# 728 - - Back from the abyss.
CP - Apparently, a group of people called “we” in CASA say that some evidence from a witness to the inquiry is, for example, “false and misleading”.
Aherne: CASA 5.12. The Special Audit was never meant to be in the public arena. Ms Casey’s original request had to be made under Freedom of Information. If it was available in the public arena, Ms Casey would not have to make an FOI request.
Ms. Casey did very well to get the pages, very well indeed. The problem for CASA began when the application was submitted. I am certain that many can attest to the difficulty and expense involved in obtaining documents from CASA under the FOI. Almost all applications are vetted by 'I'm a star, see' and his motley crew. The extremes of the FOI act, all the dark and every grey area are known and exploited, to the 'dizzy limits'; then there is the cost factor, which can be prohibitive. Yes: I know what the FOI Act says, but the gauntlet of legal extremes needs to be run. So this simple understatement of Ahearn's belies the effort and determination required to achieve the acquisition under what I can only imagine were 'difficult' circumstances.
'He who must not be named', or the Royal Wee Wee had wisely decided not to engage with Singapore Inc, so an easy target was selected; and the "willing accomplice" set about doing the dirty deed. Every scrap which could conceivably be used against the pilot and be loosely called AAT 'evidence' was dredged up, then with the usual flair, tarted up to look like most of the previous work: a big, big pile of half arsed allegation attached to a Regulation and flogged off as "fact".
Enter the FOI dragon, now the 'willing accomplice' has a problem, a pile of cleverly manipulated 'pilot shafting' facts prepared for an AAT walkover; but, there is a great big pile of sworn RCA evidence indicating an ever so slightly contrary picture. Now being revealed in a Senate, near you. Ah, the Golden West Mafia Spin club.
Last edited by Kharon; 9th Nov 2012 at 19:01. Reason: Second coffee hindsight.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OH # 733 - "We" can make any accusation we like in a parliamentary enquiry. It is covered by absolute privilege.
Gutter tactics, Bully tactics, silly kids playground tactics: for example the fact that DJ and MQ have been 'mates' for a long time is no worse than a lawyer representing a 'valued' long term client and friend. Of course one side of the argument is fierce and biased toward the client interest. It is an adversarial system after all. But trying to parlay the 'relationship' into supporting a 'false and misleading' statement in the Senate, is, well crudely misleading.
RW 3 - "But M'lud, Smith has been representing Jones for 20 years" ; M'lud - "What's your point"?
(Heh heh one of the 'Royal Wee' knows that one, eh mate, nudge nudge).
Last edited by Kharon; 9th Nov 2012 at 21:04. Reason: Troubles wif me TuTu
"We" can make any accusation we like in a parliamentary enquiry. It is covered by absolute privilege.
If the allegation is made, knowing the allegation to be false, there are potentially serious consequences.
If someone goes in front of a Senate committee and tells a deliberate lie about me, I can’t take legal action against that person. However, telling a deliberate lie to Senate committee is itself a breach of parliamentary privilege.
The privilege exists to facilitate the discovery of truth, not to protect deliberate liars.
That’s why I’m interested to know what individuals in CASA take responsibility for throwing the mud at witnesses like Aherne.
Aherne and the other ‘private’ witnesses are personally responsible for their evidence – and rightly so.
But who, precisely, in CASA, takes responsibility for asserting that Aherne said something “false and misleading”?
At the point at which Senator Fawcett asked the CASA witnesses about who was responsible for ‘closing the loop’ on commitments made by CASA to coroners, all the witnesses ducked for cover – nobody was responsible. I wonder what the answer would be if Committee asked each of the CASA witnesses at the next hearing to either take or deny responsibility for the content of the First Supplemental Submission.
I’ve just read Mr Davies’ submission.
I say again: CASA’s response to the ditching was a travesty and the ATSB report was a sick joke.
Last edited by Creampuff; 9th Nov 2012 at 21:10.
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
Awesome! Pony pooh, spin, Casaweary, damning reports.......
This is getting better than 'Days Of Our Lives'!!
Craphand,
Mate, time to get back to doing what you do worst - fixing Postie bikes. Every time you comment you dig yourself a deeper hole. I have now elevated your status to another cloud cuckoo land fool, Ken Borough.
Casaweary,
Welcome back from your exile in pony pooh land! One can only assume that you are out of jail, retired from working at Fort Fumble or merely decided to have a bit of fun again with Flyingfiend (Although I don't think that is his real name) Anyway, we hope you are back to play for a while. Your robust and entertaining internal comments about Fort Fumbles monkey business is entertaining, somewhat concerning and certainly turn out to be somewhat truthful in the end.
Sarcs,
Love it! Here is the problem (or one of them). A bunch of PHD touting nimrods who have been allowed to do as they please, interpret as they please, enforce as they please and pineapple as they please, writing the rules. Take out of the hands of this department and get some bloody real aviation people to write the rules for god's sake.
Perhaps we need an 'Occupy CASA' movement?
And finally and incredibly straight from the ponies mouth,
THIS STOCK STANDARD POOH EMBEDDED STATEMENT HAS BEEN TROTTED OUT EVERY TIME THEY ARE SCRUTINIZED ACCURATELY AND THEY ARE UNDER THE HAMMER. INDUSTRY HAS HEARD 23 YEARS WORTH OF THIS ****E.
Let's do the historical search and count how many times they have spun there way out of trouble with the claim that the reg repair is months away from being finished. I know, why don't the Senators or an authoritive power enforce that CASA be accountable just as they make industry accountable!
Make them:
a) Set goals, milestones and targets
b) Make those goals, milestones and targets non negotiable
c) Make CASA, the Board and the Minister accountable for non-compliance with time frames and actually punish them
d) Make them provide FACTUAL reports, updates and progress statements with associated PROOF and EVIDENCE that it is being done, meeting key targets, on track to achieve objectives
SENATORS, ON A FINAL NOTE ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THE TIME HAS COME, WE WANT A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO AUSTRALIAN AVIATION'S CASA/ASA/ATSB. THE FISH HAS WELL AND TRULY ROTTED FROM THE HEAD. IT IS TIME TO ACT.
Craphand,
Blackhand Quote:
No it's not. It's an emotive diatribe full of subjective and sometimes falacious information.
No it's not. It's an emotive diatribe full of subjective and sometimes falacious information.
Casaweary,
Welcome back from your exile in pony pooh land! One can only assume that you are out of jail, retired from working at Fort Fumble or merely decided to have a bit of fun again with Flyingfiend (Although I don't think that is his real name
) Anyway, we hope you are back to play for a while. Your robust and entertaining internal comments about Fort Fumbles monkey business is entertaining, somewhat concerning and certainly turn out to be somewhat truthful in the end. Sarcs,
sarcs - Creamy good point, do you think that this FSS submission was written by CASA Legal Services i.e. AA and cronies? Or has the DAS got his EA to draft up this FSS with the ‘royal we’ and then got AA to run his eye over it? Either way it is quite a bizarre submission!
Perhaps we need an 'Occupy CASA' movement?
And finally and incredibly straight from the ponies mouth,
CASA is finalizing the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and expects these will be completed and made by the end of the first quarter 2013.
Let's do the historical search and count how many times they have spun there way out of trouble with the claim that the reg repair is months away from being finished. I know, why don't the Senators or an authoritive power enforce that CASA be accountable just as they make industry accountable!
Make them:
a) Set goals, milestones and targets
b) Make those goals, milestones and targets non negotiable
c) Make CASA, the Board and the Minister accountable for non-compliance with time frames and actually punish them
d) Make them provide FACTUAL reports, updates and progress statements with associated PROOF and EVIDENCE that it is being done, meeting key targets, on track to achieve objectives
SENATORS, ON A FINAL NOTE ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THE TIME HAS COME, WE WANT A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO AUSTRALIAN AVIATION'S CASA/ASA/ATSB. THE FISH HAS WELL AND TRULY ROTTED FROM THE HEAD. IT IS TIME TO ACT.
Last edited by gobbledock; 9th Nov 2012 at 22:41.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can deliberately misleading the senate be classed as perjury?
Take a look at the UK inquiry into phone tapping (leveson) by the media. Rebecca Brooks and others biggest mistake was lying to the inquiry.
Perjury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gobbledock. I was wondering about the chess game? But, I reckon casa cluedo would be another good one!
Take a look at the UK inquiry into phone tapping (leveson) by the media. Rebecca Brooks and others biggest mistake was lying to the inquiry.
Perjury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gobbledock. I was wondering about the chess game? But, I reckon casa cluedo would be another good one!
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 9th Nov 2012 at 23:20. Reason: Wiki link