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

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

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

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Old 14th Nov 2012, 06:08
  #721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Give me a break!
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2012, 06:24
  #722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Admire your passion Frank and have to agree with...
The Catholic Church is getting more "air time" than all of you. The NSW Police are in trouble, Slippery Pete has his own problems in Oxford Street, Gillard is backed into a corner, the "Baby Factory's" at DOC'S are more important, than the notion that most of us are representative of a fractionated industry is a fact.
Shame we don't have Hedley Thomas batting for our team he is like a blue healer nipping away at the heel's of the Ginger Ninja.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I reckon HT would certainly have the tenacity to ferret out all the skeletons at Fort Fumble but unfortunately he is obviously otherwise occupied. Unless someone knows of another investigative journo that would be interested in our cause I suggest we throw support behind the Senators or at least let them know they are officially on notice!

Noticed that there is another embarassing revelation revealed on the Senate site:
Dear Senator Heffernan

Clarification of statements made at hearing on 22 October 2012


I write regarding certain statements made during the appearance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) at the inquiry into aviation accident investigation (Pel-Air) on 22 October 2012.

At page 36 of the Hansard from Monday 22 October I stated:

Senator XENOPHON: So, there is nothing to stop Mr Wickham working on Pel-Air right now, notwithstanding the fact that he was the chief pilot?
Mr McCormick: Mr Wickham has not worked on Pel-Air other than to do a desktop review on some aspects.

I made this in good faith. It has since been brought to my attention that Mr Wickham was not involved in desk top work but instead, on 11 November 2011, he participated as an observer for an assessment of a Pel-Air check pilot in order to gain approval to conduct an Emergency Procedures Check under the Civil Aviation Orders. This was necessary as part of Mr Wickham’s development for a Flying Operations Inspector role. No other work was conducted on Pel-Air by Mr Wickham.

I apologise if my comments have in anyway been misleading.

Yours sincerely
Makes you wonder how it will be possible for the Senators to believe anything that comes out of the mouths of Fort Fumbles senior troughfeeders, the bard said it well..
WS: Lord, Lord, how subject we old men are to this vice of lying!
...however Aristotle said it better..
The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.


Forgot to mention next Monday and Wednesday program is up:
Inquiry into the Aviation Accident Investigations

Public hearing - Canberra, Monday 19 November 2012

Committee Room 2S1
Parliament House
CANBERRA
Time
Witness

Sub No.

10.00 am
Airservices Australia
Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer
Mr Jason Harfield, Executive General Manager Air Traffic Control
Mr Peter Hobson, A/g Manager Network Management Services

11.00 am
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Mr Barry Hanstrume, Regional Director NSW

12:00 pm
Adjournment









Inquiry into the Aviation Accident Investigations

Public hearing - Canberra, Wednesday 21 November 2012

Committee Room 2S1
Parliament House
CANBERRA
Time
Witness

Sub No.

4.00 pm
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Professor John McMillan AO, Australian Information Commissioner

5.00 pm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Mr Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner
Mr Ian Sangston, General Manager Aviation Safety Investigations
Mr Julian Walsh, General Manager Strategic Capability
Mr Joe Hattley, Assistant General Manager Strategic Capability

2

6:30 pm
Adjournment






The OAIC commissioner is an interesting one...wonder what that's all about? No Fort Fumble though!

Last edited by Sarcs; 14th Nov 2012 at 07:16. Reason: Thanks creamy
Sarcs is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2012, 07:07
  #723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
You left the word “observer” out of the quote from the letter, Sarcs. He “… participated as an observer …”.

Still, it looks like a “correction” rather than a “clarification” by Mr McCormick. Those sh*t sandwiches must be getting rather filling…

I wonder whether CASA will be making another Supplemental Submission, trashing Mr Davies’ integrity.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2012, 07:13
  #724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Interesting so the ex Pel Air guy worked on Pel Air when he joined casa? Possibly only as an observer as Creampuff suggests.

There is a casa policy on conflict of interest which wasn't complied with?

Also see FAA document below.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...4-09-2008).pdf

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 14th Nov 2012 at 07:16. Reason: Removed conflict of interest
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2012, 07:18
  #725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 606
Creampuff...

I wonder whether CASA will be making another Supplemental Submission, trashing Mr Davies’ integrity.
To me, the nugatory attempts by CASA to trash the integrity of Messrs Quinn and Aherne were spectacularly unsuccessful. So perhaps:

I wonder whether CASA will make another Supplemental Submission, this time in an attempt to trash Mr Davies’ integrity?

Last edited by SIUYA; 14th Nov 2012 at 08:40. Reason: self-explanatory
SIUYA is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2012, 07:36
  #726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
"Attempt" indeed.

I'm hoping they'll make that attempt, so I can read Mr Davies' response. I reckon it would be very instructive.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 02:56
  #727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
It was written

So how do we find our way back to actually being "world class".
Assuming we were ever "world class" instead of being "over-regulated" even back to the good DCA days, why would anybody bother.

There are people here openly trying to address contemporary issues and doing a good job of it. Put that question to them.

There are others like me who want the whole evolutionary "problem" "devolved" into a nutshell that can be flushed down the dunny.

The problems are real, the problems are compounded by complacency, (but who cares), the problems are opportunistic, having doors open to CASA, by "industry experts" with weird enthusiasm for junkets and headlines. People who would foist blame on "adventurers" to guild the class divide. People who run "representative groups for the power an executive Troika gives them.

As for me, I want revenge!

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 15th Nov 2012 at 02:58.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 03:58
  #728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
CASA/ATSB AQONs!

Have taken a look at the regulator and bureau answer to questions on notice that were released on the Senate site yesterday. Boy both Federal agencies are sure digging themselves a very big hole!

Lets start with Fort Fumble’s arrogant replies to their QONs:
CASA01: Experience of Pel-Air Chief Pilot
Hansard: p.34

CHAIR: It has been suggested to us that the chief pilot, who is now the CASA Bankstown person, did not really have a lot of experience himself with these types of aircraft. Do you know what his experience was with Westwind aircraft? I presume he was endorsed to fly the damn things—was he?

Mr McCormick: He was, but I do not have the figure in front of me showing what his experience was at the time. It may be in some of the documents we gave you.

CHAIR: Could you take that on notice?

Mr McCormick: Sure.

Answer:
Mr Wickham completed a co-pilot endorsement on the Westwind on 23 September 1992.

Mr Wickham has 50 hours experience on the aircraft as a co-pilot.

A chief pilot need not, in all cases, be endorsed to fly all of the aircraft types covered by an Air Operator’s Certificate as pilot-in-command. In such cases, the Civil Aviation Orders permit the chief pilot to delegate his or her operational duties to another member of the operator’s staff. In this case, the chief pilot’s operational duties in relation to Pel-Air’s Westwind aircraft had been delegated to the fleet manager, Mr Ian ‘Wally’ Meyer. At the time of the accident, Mr Meyer was fully endorsed on the Westwind aircraft, had over 20,000 hours total aeronautical experience with 147 hours as pilot-in-command on the Westwind in
the 12 months preceding the accident.

Doesn’t Fort Fumble realise how hypocritical and short-sighted that answer is especially when you put it into context of the following discourse from the hearing Hansard pg 35:
Senator STERLE: Thank you. The problem that I think some of us on the committee are having is that we have seen, through evidence, that the chief pilot of Pel-Air at the time of the ditching has now moved to a higher grade job but it is also within CASA. So we are thinking, 'Hang on, while this was all going wrong at Pel-Air, who did it slip past?' Is that fair to ask?

Mr McCormick: Yes. I will ask Mr Hood to give you a bit more on this.

Mr Hood: I have a few notes in relation to Pel-Air and the safety alert. In 2008, following the issue of the safety alert to Pel-Air, CASA raised with Regional Express, which is the owner, and with Pel-Air the question of whether the then chief pilot was effective in his role. Pel-Air subsequently said that their view was that the chief pilot in 2008 may not have been effective in his role and therefore appointed Captain Wickham as the chief pilot. Following our assessment on 21 November 2008 Mr Wickham was appointed to the role of head of flight ops.

Senator STERLE: Thank you. Would it be fair to say that anyone can hold that certificate, but in these small operations like Pel-Air is there a trend set? Is it normally the chief pilot or is it a mixture of everyone?

Mr McCormick: No. As far as holding the certificate goes, the chief pilot is an identified position under the regulations and we have to approve the person.

Senator STERLE: Okay. In 2008 there was a different chief pilot, as we have established, because CASA said that the fellow was not up to the mark. All of a sudden there is a new chief pilot appointed, which is Mr Wickham, but for some reason the holding of the certificate does not flow to the chief pilot; it disappears somewhere else.




But hang on wasn’t this “Mr Ian ‘Wally’ Meyer” the former Chief Pilot that was deemed ‘ineffective’ in his role? Presumably he was also the individual that had overseen previous CASA audits, AOC changes etc..etc for a number of years prior to being forced to relinquish the CP position to Mr Wickham. Therefore it can be assumed that he was the main purveyor of sustained ‘normalised deviations’ within the Pel-Air AOC. Which ironically probably more than justifies Pel-Air’s decision to replace him as CP.

So the new CP then defers his ‘operational duties’ on the Westwind aircraft to WM who is designated the Westwind fleet manager. Presumably, aside from losing his CP approval, WM kept all his previous CASA approvals so in effect although he has swapped caps WM’s normalised deviations are allowed to continue albeit in a different role. Which the CASA special audit team more than adequately highlighted throughout the SAR. Some examples being (a) WM was one of two pilots who landed at Norfolk (05/10/09) with less than alternate fuel and; (b) WM was found to be giving less than adequate 20.11 training and checking.

Fort Fumble’s arrogance, disdain etc displayed in this reply is beyond belief! Do these numbnuts think we’re all stupid…sheesh and this is question one!

As Kelpie would say.. “more to follow”.





The AQONs are down near the bottom of this page:Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia

ps UITA had to do it mate the yodelling was doing my head in!

Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 04:25
  #729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,477
Wickham, chief pilot has 50 hours on a westwind as co pilot.

He delegates to Meyer who has 127 hours on the type(not specified as pilot in command, so I assume as co pilot too)

Dominic James, who they purport to supervise, has 923 hours on type.

Then CASA hires Wickham as a flight operations inspector and attempts to hang James out to dry????

This is fcucking bizarre!!!

Last edited by Sunfish; 15th Nov 2012 at 04:27.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 04:38
  #730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 105



Mr Ian ‘Wally’ Meyer. At the
time of the accident, Mr Meyer was fully endorsed on the
Westwind aircraft, had over 20,000
hours total aeronautical experience with 147 hours as pilot-in-command on the
Westwind in the 12 months preceding the accident.


He delegates to Meyer who has 127 hours on the type(not specified as pilot in
command, so I assume as co pilot too)
Before we all get too excited have a read of what it actually says. I don't think it is suggesting that DJ had more hours on type than the fleet manager but it does bring into question as SARCs mentions, why WM wasn't considered good enough to be CP but then had oversight of the Westwind fleet!
Lookleft is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 05:00
  #731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
LL well done mate Sunny was jumping the gun there! I'd say there was definitely no problem with WM's currency on type and I dare say he'd probably have upwards of a couple of K total time on type.

Still doesn't address the fact that WM was deemed unsuitable to be the CP and then received several Special Audit blackmarks (including RCAs) throughout the SAR again highlighting his deficiencies and yet he was still the Fleet Manager for the Westwind ops, sorry WTF!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 05:42
  #732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Nah blackie MQ had already fallen on his sword long before this debacle, plus you skipped a couple of steps along the food chain...(1) FOI overseeing Pel-Air; (2) Team Leader Flight Ops Sydney region; (3) Regional Manager (acting at the time) for Sydney/Bankstown (this is the one where the pony pooh detector goes off the scale).

But blackie don't let us get in the road of your obvious attempt to smear some pony pooh across Mr Quinn's name. Big Mack's rule 101..."forget the ball always, always play the man!"

Let's move onto question 2 from the CASA AQON PDF:
CASA02: FOI views on diversion
Hansard: p. 37

Senator FAWCETT: How many FOIs thought it was a legal requirement to divert your flying operations inspectors?

Mr McCormick: I do not have that information. We can find that on notice, if you like.

Answer:

As part of CASA’s own investigation into the Pel-Air accident, the officer in charge took an informal sample of the views of six CASA Flying Operations Inspectors (FOIs) regarding the appropriate decision to divert, in relation to the actions of the captain of the aircraft involved in the accident. The three FOIs experienced on large aircraft were of the opinion that if a pilot whilst enroute, became aware of the weather at the destination going below alternate minima but remained above the landing minima, then a diversion was not required. The three FOIs who flew smaller aircraft were of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the weather going below alternate minima, whilst enroute, a diversion was required.

It should be noted that, in March 2010, the details of the accident were not widely known amongst the CASA inspectorate. CASA’s position with respect to the diversion issue was and remains that, in all the circumstances of the accident flight, good airmanship should have resulted in a diversion, even if there was no explicit, mandatory requirement that the accident pilot do so.
This question when asked was a prelude to one of those golden moments in the hearing, here is the follow on discourse from the QON:

Senator FAWCETT: Does anyone on the panel have that information?

CHAIR: You have to have some idea.

Senator FAWCETT: I have got an email here from a fairly senior person within CASA saying: 'Our FOI perforation seems to be evenly split about the need or not to mandatorily divert from an alternate from the last possible diversion if the destination weather falls below the alternate minima. 'It goes on to talk about a range of things to do with that. That is followed up by another email—fairly senior again within CASA—on 20 March 2010, which says: 'I am happy with the path you are taking. My point is and you are addressing it that, as a result of reliance on the AIP, the Aeronautical Information Publication, which has no head of power and contains much that we need to revisit anyway, there is one group of pilots that have one view which leads to a mandatory diversion, and another group with the opposite view. Putting aside the practicalities, both groups believe that they are legally correct'—
and this is talking about FOIs—senior flying people within CASA. 'If we find ourselves in an AAT or a court, we once again could look a bit foolish if we, the regulator, find ourselves in a position where we have to say that there are two conflicting views, one of which has to be wrong, and we have done nothing to rectify that over the years—very untidy.'

What that says to me is that you have written the paragraph here aimed at Mr James which indicates that this body of knowledge and training should enable him to make the right decision in every circumstance, putting aside the fact of fuel planning and all the rest of it—and I understand that. The fact is, within CASA, 50 per cent of your FOIs disagreed with the other 50 per cent over what the legal interpretation of that was.

CHAIR: Before you respond to that, if you do not mind, just a procedural matter, Mr McCormick: would you care to make that a public document?

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to.

CHAIR: Thank you. We will publish that.

Senator XENOPHON: If it is noted publicly, the author of that and these other documents should be redacted.

CHAIR: I am sure one of these guys up here is very familiar with it.
(edit note: there was stunned silence at the CASA table)
There was more pregnant pauses, dagger stares, flaming red ears etc..etc but I digress back to question 2...

Last edited by Sarcs; 15th Nov 2012 at 06:01.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 07:46
  #733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
It should be noted that, in March 2010, the details of the accident were not widely known amongst the CASA inspectorate. CASA’s position with respect to the diversion issue was and remains that, in all the circumstances of the accident flight, good airmanship should have resulted in a diversion, even if there was no explicit, mandatory requirement that the accident pilot do so.
Another assertion purporting to represent the states of mind of each and every individual within CASA.

More importantly, it’s not relevant to the question. The question was about a division of opinion in CASA on whether diversion was mandatory in the circumstances, not about CASA’s ‘position’ on whether ‘good airmanship should have resulted in a diversion’.

Further, knowledge of the details of the accident is irrelevant to the question whether a diversion is mandated or good airmanship, when a PIC becomes aware of the weather at the destination going below alternate minima but remained above the landing minima. That’s a question that may be properly answered in the abstract. What details of the accident could possibly alter the answer?

And remind me: Where is CASA’s power to set the standard of ‘good airmanship’, separate from the standards of pilot competence and experience in the rules, and where is the rule that says a pilot must continuously meet or exceed the standard of ‘good airmanship’ determined by CASA?

Last edited by Creampuff; 15th Nov 2012 at 07:46.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 08:14
  #734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Sunfish, I think you will find that WM has more than 10k hours on the Westwind, the 127 hours referred to his recency only.

Will be interesting to ask the question who required WM to be delegated this authority. Even more interesting when you know the answer ....
JetA_OK is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 10:03
  #735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,477
JetA, you may well be right, but CASA has a certain way with words, and is occasionally very economical with them. If the person in question has X thousand hours on type, why not say so?

I still dont understand why CASA hired Wickham either. By their standard I am a perfect potential FOI because I know even less than Wickham would appear to, because I am therefore very trainable since I dont know any better. Or is this some masonic ex RAAF secret handshake thing?

But then, what would I know?

Last edited by Sunfish; 15th Nov 2012 at 10:05.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 10:57
  #736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Sunfish; I'd go so far as to say WM has more Westwind time than just about anyone else in the world. And if that doesn't show the folly of judging management ability by a log book then nothing will. By the way, that's exactly what you have done here. JW's suitability for CASA (or otherwise) had nothing to do with his logbook.
JetA_OK is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 11:32
  #737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 56
Posts: 1,437
Project Pony Pooh - Part 3 of 6

Here is the next installment. I have gone to Part 3 because up-into-the-air jumped the gun on me and slotted Mr Skull into second position.

Helen Gillies was appointed to the Board on 1 July 2009. She has a Bachelor of Commerce and a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) from the University of Queensland, a Master of Business Administration from the University of Sydney, and a Master of Construction Law from the University of Melbourne.

Ms Gillies has been practising law for 20 years and is currently Corporate Counsel and general manager of Risk and Compliance with Sinclair Knight Merz. She won the Australian Corporate Lawyers Association, Australian Corporate Lawyer of the Year award in 2008 and has been admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Courts of Queensland and New South Wales, and admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales.
And her relevance and value to aviation is???
So far we have covered three members of the Magnificent 6 - One angry ex Cathay 49er, one lawyer and one long term government bureaucrat. 3 down and 3 to go.

Last edited by gobbledock; 15th Nov 2012 at 11:34.
gobbledock is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 11:42
  #738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 56
Posts: 1,437
More pooh just for you

I copied the below 'statement of pooh' directly from the CASA website. I have bolded the parts I believe are laughable and pure shite.
I also noted that the Skull is still referred to as the CEO. Isn't he the Director? Creampuff have I got this right mate? If so they should be issued a NCN for 'incorrect org structure'!

Who we are
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was established on 6 July 1995 as an independent statutory authority. Under section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA is a body corporate separate from the Commonwealth.

CASA's primary function is to conduct the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and the operation of Australian aircraft overseas. It is also required to provide comprehensive safety education and training programmes, cooperate with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and administer the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959.

The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 2002, made under authority of the Civil Aviation Act, provide for general regulatory controls for the safety of air navigation. The Civil Aviation Act and the Regulations empower CASA to issue Civil Aviation Orders on detailed matters of regulation. CASA charges for the provision of some services under the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations (1995).
Other legislation affecting CASA in the exercise of its powers include the:

Air Navigation Act 1920
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997
Auditor-General Act 1997
Ombudsman Act 1976
Freedom of Information Act 1982
Privacy Act 1988
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

The Chief Executive Officer manages CASA, and is responsible to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

The Challenge
To lead the aviation community in providing Australia with a world-class air safety environment which has public trust and confidence.

Our Vision
Safe skies for all.

Our Values
Shared commitment to CASA's vision of Safe skies for all
Continual examination of ways to improve everything we do
Dedication to timely, quality service internally and externally
Integrity and professionalism
Respect and courtesy
Fairness and consistency
Teamwork


Government Policy
In November 2003, the Federal Government issued CASA with a new Charter Letter. This Letter sets out strategic directions for CASA, outlines CASA's governance arrangements and sets out the Government's policy framework for aviation.
In the Charter Letter, the former Minister for Transport and Regional Services, The Hon John Anderson MP, summarises the Government's directions for CASA:
‘I wish to see CASA demonstrate world's best practice in the area of aviation safety regulation. In its daily dealings, CASA must exhibit those behavioural attributes of a good regulator including consistency, accountability, fairness, flexibility and efficiency.


The CASA reform process must be taken forward to achieve the Government's aim of a simple-to-follow regulatory system and a new and improved organisational culture. These objectives must be accompanied by explicit benchmarks and a capacity within CASA to demonstrate in a measurable and accountable way how and when these objectives will be met.’

Our Functions
CASA’s four major functional areas of responsibility are:
Setting civil aviation standards that are appropriate, clear, concise and aligned with international practice
Providing regulatory services to industry in a timely and responsive manner
Securing compliance with Australian aviation standards effectively, fairly and in a consistent manner; and
Fostering an informed and safety motivated aviation community

These functions are further defined and performance measures articulated in CASA’s Corporate Plan.

Our Conduct
The community has a right to expect high standards of service based on sound ethical values.
The CASA Code of Conduct states that CASA staff must:
act honestly and fairly;
be courteous and helpful;
comply with all lawful and reasonable instructions given to them by a person entitled to do so; and
so far as priorities and resources permit, apply the highest possible standards of professionalism in everything they do.
Here is a link also their website and the small tiny printed section titled - Industry Complaints Management. Not much detail but a listing of complaints registered against Fort Fumble in the first 6 months of this year.You have to scroll down a little.
What was that about a Leopard not changing it's spots?

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...d/janjun12.pdf

Last edited by gobbledock; 15th Nov 2012 at 11:57. Reason: Avoiding elephants and Leopards in the middle of the room
gobbledock is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 18:46
  #739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
CP # 788 –"Further, knowledge of the details of the accident is irrelevant to the question whether a diversion is mandated or good airmanship, when a PIC becomes aware of the weather at the destination going below alternate minima but remained above the landing minima. That’s a question that may be properly answered in the abstract. What details of the accident could possibly alter the answer?"
The response to Q2 on notice made me smile all day, even had a couple of quite chuckles and many head shakes. Creamy nailed it in one; Oh, who was it, "you can fool some of the people most of the time". etc.

The upcoming event I am intrigued with is the Information Commissioner being called on Wednesday, has 'I'm a star, see' been treading a bit close to the ragged edges of the FoI Act, again ?, we shall see.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.
Google is your friend.

Last edited by Kharon; 15th Nov 2012 at 18:47. Reason: tempus fugit - GD they locked your story -DGA
Kharon is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 21:29
  #740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
The upcoming event I am intrigued with is the Information Commissioner being called on Wednesday, has 'I'm a star, see' been treading a bit close to the ragged edges of the FoI Act, again ?, we shall see.
Unfortunately AA aka Flyingfiend isn't the subject of attention by the IC, apparently the Senate Committee submitted an FOI request to the ATSB part of which they declined to produce citing the privacy provisions of the TSI Act. Why the IC has to front up and spell out his submission who knows??

Onwards and down the page to Q3 which is a doozy and draws attention yet again to the inadequacies of CAR 206. Again there is a fair amount of the usual spin and obfuscation, however 'stop the press' apparently the classification of operations has been sorted back in 2003:

CASA03: ATSB recommendation on aeromedical flights
Hansard: p.44

Mr McCormick: The actual classification of aeromedical flights as aerial work is contained in CAR 206.

Senator XENOPHON: Is that the same as it was 11 years ago, or has it been— Mr McCormick: It goes back significantly further than 2001.
Senator XENOPHON: No, but there was a recommendation made back in 2001 raising issues about having aeromedical flights being in the same category as aerial work, which includes crop dusting—that is correct, isn't it?

Mr McCormick: Aerial work does include crop dusting.

Senator XENOPHON: So there were issues raised by ATSB back in 2001 about the classifications and that something needed to be done about them. That was a recommendation made to CASA; are they still under the same category 11 years later?

Mr McCormick: They are still classified as aerial work of a CAR 206, that is right.

Senator XENOPHON: So it has not been rectified?

Mr McCormick: No—well, I do not know the recommendation out in front of you, but if that is the case—

Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps you could take this on notice: it is ATSB investigation BO/200100348. You could take that on notice.

Answer:
An ATSB Investigation in 2001 (BO/ 200100348) makes a number of references to the classification of operations (pp.75, 80). While the reference on page 80 advises that CASA in a recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM 0102OS, August 2001) had summarised
the situation with regard to classification of aircraft operations, the reference on page 75 of the same report refers to safety recommendation R20010195, which is also quoted in another ATSB report. This ATSB report is Investigation Number 200003130 into the accident involving Bell helicopter 206L3, registration VH-FFI, on 23 July 2000 northwest of
Rockhampton. This flight was a helicopter patient transfer carried out as aerial work.

The recommendation in question R20010195 stated:

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority consider proposing an increase in the operations' classification, and/or the minimum safety standards required, for organisations that transport their own employees and similar personnel (for example contractors, personnel from related organisations, or prisoners, but not fare-paying passengers) on a regular basis. This recommendation applies to all such operations, regardless of the take-off weight of
the aircraft involved.

CASA responded in part:-

As you are aware, CASA is presently reviewing the standards contained within the existing Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) with regard to the Classification of Aircraft Operations. The input and recommendations contained within Air Safety Recommendation R20010195 will be taken into consideration and addressed as part of this project.

The outcome of the review will determine which category employees (and similar personnel such as contractors) are placed and the standards that will apply to their transportation in aircraft. I trust that this review will satisfactorily address the issues raised in this Air Safety Recommendation. … CASA has prepared a draft amendment to the Classification of Operations Policy that increases the requirements for operators who carry employees and similar types of passengers. The proposal is currently with the Standards Consultative Committee, and will be presented to the Aviation Safety Forum on 6 December 2002. It is anticipated that an NPRM to amend CAR 206 will then be issued for public comment in early 2003.

In March 2003 CASA issued NPRM0304OS, which canvassed possible amendments to the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) covering aerial work (CAR 206).

Consistent with the endorsement of the CASA Board in 2001, the NPRM made no recommendation to reclassify what had been (and remains) aerial ambulance operations.
I wonder how many of you would beg to differ that it has been sorted??
Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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